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

snake into.a vicious vitality. In that case the worthy magi-
strates could not 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." " No," said his victims. " Oh,
then," said he, " it's Queen Elizabeth's shilline." They
were therefore fined Queen Elizabeth's shilling, which in value
amounted to one pound eight shillings, and they being labour-
ing 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. Penaltiea, restricting a man from the exercise o 1 his
religion according to his own faith, penalties, not against the
individual for an act committed against the country, but for
the exercise of a particular faith, for opinions expressed, or for
worship exercised, ought not to be allowed to remain on the
statute book. But when they proposed to remove penalties
inflicted upon persons for introducing into this country the
edicts, the bulls, and decrees of a foreign potentate, who as-
sumed superior jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical,
not alone in his own country, but over the whole
world, and over the subjects of her Majesty the Queen of
England, he for one could not agree to such a proposal.
If the Pope sent a bull into this country, in any way libelling
the Church of England, the Sovereign, the State, or the Par-
liament of this country as by law established, the person who
fixed that bull up or published it was amenable to the law as
it now stands. But the ingenuity of the Vatican did not
stop there; the Vatican 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 obtained
such an influence as would very mischievously effect the minds
of the people. He, therefore, saw great difficulties w hich in-
duced 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
the earth more slavishly subnais,ive to the will of a tyrannical
master than were the priests of the Roman Catholic Church
to the Pope's commands. They might laugh at the temporal
power of the Pope, but through the submission of the
Catholic priests to their Sovereign, the Bishop of
Rome, there was no potentate in the whole world
more powerful in spiritual matters than the Pope.
The penalties of presnaunire and recusancy were absurd
penalties, and they ought not to be allowed to remain on the
statute-book. He had only to add, that they could not altogether
dispense with the prohibitions as to processions. He knew
how offensive these Popish processions would prove to the
people of England, and he considered that they would excite
strong feelings among the inhabitants of Birmingham and other
towns. With regard to bells he would say nothing, as he did
not think their orthodoxy could be affected by them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated that there was
nothing proposed in the Bill with regard to bells. He had
great respect for the Roman Catholics ; he had nothing to do
with their religious superstitions—he only wondered how
they believed in them.—( Laughter.) The Noble aissl Learned
Lord had stated the case for a repeal of this Aet in i clearest
manner—as he did on every other matter—and he trwied their
Lordships would see the necessity of repealing the !-.st.
The Bishop of LONDON said he had 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,
because it required rather a legal than a theological mind to
look properly into them; but, after such consideration as he
could give them, he had come to the determination not to resist
the second reading of the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The last ques-
tion was, whether those penalties could not be modified, for it
should be recollected that this claim 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
Majesty'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 Elisabeth 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 Catholic 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 that he
at one time wished the assistance of her Majesty's judges, with
regard to these provisions, but after what transpired he thought
they would generally concur in removing those dishabilities
from the freedom of opinion.
Lord CA MOYS returned his thanks to the Noble Lord for
having introduced such a Bill; and he quite concurred with
him that these odious penalties should be repealed. He
thought, however, that the laws which forbade Roman Cntholics
to present to livings should alas be repealed. No evil
could result from Roman Catholics having that
power, for the clergyman would require to be pre-
viously examined before his presentation to any living.
(The Noble Lord then quoted from Butler's edition
of Coke upon Littleton, to prove that no danger
could result from Roman Catholics having that power. )
If the Acts of the 10th of George IV. were examined, it
would be found that the Roman Catholic divine, who allowed
himself to be called Archbishop, was liable to a penalty of
one hundred ponnds. How would this apply to the Right
Rev. Dr. Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.
That Right Rev. Prelate was always acknowledged as the
Archbishop, but no such fine had ever been inflicted. The
Noble Lord then read the Acts referred to. He could not
perceive what possible purpose such Acts would serve, and he
thought the sooner they were removed from the statute book
the better. It was not the Catholics alone who sought to
have these clauses repealed, but there was a large party,
struggling for the sake of common sense and toleration, who
wiahed to see these penalties blotted out of the statute hook.
Representing, as he did, the Roman Catholics of the United
Kingdom, he thought he 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 and tolerant spirit of the Noble Lord to
hereafter adopt the suggestions he had ventured to throw
out.—( Hear, hear. )
The Bishop of EXETER wished, after what had fallen from
the Noble Lord who had just sat down, to say a few words, but
he would promise not to detain their Lordships for more than a
few minutes. He did not intend to oppose the Bill which was
before their Lordships, but notwithstanding what had fallen
from the Noble Lord who last addressed the House, he could
not help thinking that these penalties were as justly inflicted
upon certain parties at the time they were enacted as they
were now justly blotted out of the statute book. Until that
evening, he thought the day had gone by when a Noble
Lord would get up and speak against an Act of Parliament
which gave himself the right of a seat in that House, and their
Lordships the benefit of his attendance and advice. The Noble
Lord, in speaking of the same Art, said a stranger coming in at
the moment, and hearing what he said, would think he was
quoting an Act passed in 1816, instead of 1846, but in his
opinion it was foolish for the Noble Lord to talk in this strain,
because although there were some offences which did not de-
serve to be treated as acts of high treason, yet it was necessary
for their Lordships to put up with the inconvenience
of prohibiting these offences, by sanctioning a legis-
lative measure which inflicted upon parties com-
mitting them penalties of a trifling character.—( Hear, hear.)
At the present moment there was a Bill passing through
the other House of Parliament, which appeared to him to
comprise the objects of this Bill. He did hope that that Bill,
which did in fact contain a clause similar to that to which
the Noble Baron objected would not pass that House, but he
was quite sure that if ever it reached their Lordship's table it
would either be largely modified or altogether rejected. He
who was at the present time Prime Minister of the country,
and who had been mainly instrumental in passing the Act of
1829, had stated in the honesty of his heart, and he believed
his heart was honest, that if ever any of attempt were
made to do away with the small security which that Act
preserved, he would give it his sternest and most decided op-
position. The Bill in the other House had already passed
the second reading, but he believed that it would be impos-
sible for it to receive the sanction of the Legislature. In the
Act of 1829 there was a section of what the Noble Baron termed
petty regulation, but which he himself conceived to be of little
importance. 1 hat section imposed a penalty of 100/. upon any
one assuming the title of bishop, archbishop, or dean of any
province to which they were riot entitled by the law of the
land. It was evident to 'their Lordships, that there could not
be two bishops of the same" province at one time. The fact
was established, and the law that ruled it was recognised ; and
it was no derogation from it, that the offence had been repeat-
edly committed, because there was a difficulty in bringing the
parties who had offended under the penalties of the Act. It
was not because letters appeared in the newspapers, signed
"John of Tuam," that the parties were consequently
convicted of the offence. They might certainly sub-
poena the editors, but unless it could be shown that a letter
had been actually placed in their hands, signed in the hand-
writing of the person who claimed the title, they had no legal
proof of the offence. But there was another important conse-
quence which flowed from what the Noble Baron called petty
legislation. This was the declaration, under the Act of 1829,
that the Church of England and Ireland was the Catholic
Church, and that the Romanists either in this country or in
Ireland, were in a state of sehism.—( Hear, hear. )
He would now ask if the Roman Catholics were fit persons to
be trustees to present to benefices? He was astonished that
the refusal of the state to grant such a power could be con-
sidered a degradation. It was a gross anomaly in the law of
the land to allow any but members of the Established Church to
make such presentations. Before concluding he would allude
briefly to the Bill itself in some of its provisions. This was
not the first nor the hundreth time the question of supremacy
was discussed. If the Bill passed in its present form they
would be countenancing the assumption of the supremacy
of the Pope in the most illiberal manner that any
Pope chose to assert. He would be glad to concur
with the Noble and Learned Lord in mitigating the
denalties of prsemuire and high treason, but the enactment
as to the supremacy of the Pope ought to have been leftenunt;
touched, and he considered the safest way would haveteb
mitigate these penalties rather than abolisti them altogether.
Nominally the Pope had no direct temporal
he had that power indirectly.
ha t
ht that le)
thep Pope,wael br ugoteefwtt hhhdeeeernn:
throning kings. It would be remembered
sovereigns
ewr
ea
isg
nelectedto
Europe t he
announcing pontificald tiheh tthrone,fyeebt
bishops
m Duringlettersbee athe
eet or
tehitgeh
reign
dofidNnaolitolsetiobn;ertihbeePtohpeeirdaerloesgeiancegto him. Now this act of
the Pope was defended by the great friend of Roman Catholics,
Mr. Charles Butler, who went into a very able and learned
arguolent in support of this deposition of bishops, because they
would not give the allegiance which they had sworn to Lonis
the Eighteenth, to the usurper of the throne. He was against
taking of the statute book the penalty of supporting and extend-
ing the pernicious principles instilled by the supremacy of the
Pope. No difficulty had been experienced from the existence of
these Acts except that they were declared to be a disgrace to the
statute book, and if their Lordships gave them up, they would,
to any extent, be acknowledging thel supremacy of the Pope.
The common law of the country discountenanced this supre-
macy, and he could see no reason why they should not do so
in the present Act. It was difficult for him to say how they
should do this, but because it was surrounded with difficulties
he would leave it in the hands of his Noble and Learnd Friend
on the woolsack, believing that his active and intelligent mind
would find some means for getting rid of the diffieulty.
Lord BEAUMONT wished
tottohesjaoNyinoabwlefiethwanlitiis Noble Friend
this Bill,
Btitilla,nkanindg
wordsL e a r
uponn e d L
theo r d fwohroinstartodneuxctinhgimth,
subject last alluded to by the Right Reverend Prelate who had
just resumed his seat.—(Hear, hear.) He was not surprised
that the Government had thought it necessary to takesome
measures for securing themselves against the supremacy of the
Pope, but there were abundant means for guarding against
any abase of their privileges which their priests might exercise.
They might well avoid all this by a concordat, or by doing as
every other Government in Europe had done, by
placing
themselves in relation with the Government of Rome. Had
they done so, all difficulty would have ceased, for to all those
Governments which had done so, rescripts had been forwarded
empowering them to take the direction of the clergy into their
own hands, and then it became their duty to beas obedient in
all spiritual matters as it was their duty to be in temporal. But
in fact this dogma of supremacy was altogether regulated by
different rules than those which were generally supposed to be.
The dogma of supremacy, in fact, had never been fully carried
out. What was the course whfch the Court of Rome had pur-
sued with regard to Spain? What, with regard to France and
other countries ? Why, it was well known that the Pope had
Beyer excommunicated the clergy who had obeyed the rulers