The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-12 00:00:00

levtro ottton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

TATTERSALL'S—THIS EVENING,
Six o'cLoca.

no lawyer, and therefore his opinion could not
he held to be conclusive. Well, in order to meet that
objection, a case had been submitted to Mr. Willes, of
the Liner Temple, one of the Commissioners appointed
to inquire into the best means of amending the law
on, thisl very subject, and he had given it
as his opinion, which had since been confirmed by Sir
Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Baddeley, that this Bill, if it
passed into a law, would place the duty of Dr. Murray,
as an archbishop of his Church, in direct
conflict with his duty as a subject of the
Queen. It might, however, also be objected
that the effect of the Bill was only constructive
and not direct; but though he was not lawyer enough
to decide between the two he was sufficiently learned
to perceive that the effect of the Bill upon the
Catholic Church would be to prevent the exercise
of religious functions, and hence the effect must
not be constructive but direct.---(Hoar,
hear.)
standing order to which he referred was made in 1773,
on the occasion of a Bill being introduced into the
t 0 use
The 3
of Commons for the relief of Protestant Dissenters.
sen
Lords,ners
When that Bill went up to the Hu
several of the bishops objected to it on u
se
o
thengdrounidt
that it was improperly
n
Billwas, consequently
scituaeundtilnyg negatived.order
was After ed thetentitled,
rejection
order
in
future
theu re
t o
with
Billsth
a tbeingitlea
lintroduced
differentin o
from Parliamentthe
clandestinely
real
therenature was a B
of the provisions
which showedisionstheyc theontaiisiom
nod;And if
ever of
this enactment, or to what it was intended to apply, it
w, as the present one. He considered if the Bill had been
brought forward in Committee its whole provisions
would have been well sifted, and Members hem, enabled
to make those inquiries and obtain that information which
they deemed necessary. The Bill not only affected
the temporalities of religion, but the most vital and es-
sential parts of religion itself, and if it passed, it would
be impossible for a Roman Catholic bishop to b© or-
dained consistently with the law of the land, and unless
that ceremony took place, he could not be considered
as one of the spiritual heads of the Church. He,
therefore, called on the Speaker and the Howse, in com-
pliance with the standing order, to discharge fee Bill.
Sir G. GREY said he would not enter into the ex-
pediency of introducing the Bill in Committee, because
that was not the real question before the House, but he
might observe that the advantages mentioned by the
Hon. Gentleman were perfectly imaginary. klis Right
Hon. Friend (Lord J. Russell) would not have been
compelled to detail more minutely the provisions of the
Bill in Committee than when he first introduced the
Bill to the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Honour-
! able Gentleman had stated that the standing
order was made in 1773 in consequence of a :Blill intro-
duced into the House, and ultimately objectet 1 to by the
bishops. Now: it so happened that the standing
order was made in April, 1772, some mouths
previous to that Bill being brought forward.
There was also a similar standing order at the same time
relative to Bills affecting trade, and those tw o were not
new orders, but merely the separation of one order which
was made in 1703, into two. The standing of der, there-
fore, had certainly existed long before the Bill mentioned
by the Hon. Gentleman was introduced. There al question
was ,whether the present Bill fell within the met ining:of the
standing order. If the Hon. Gentleman had succeeded
in showing that it did, he was willing to adze it that no
objection could be taken to the course which the Hdn.
Gentleman had pursued. But how did he purpose to
show this? First, by quoting a letter written to the
Right Honourable Baronet the Member 'for Ripon
before the Bill was introduced, which relied
mainly for its line of argument upon the word " acts" to
be done by any bishop, which word, in fact, t vas not to
be found in the Bill as it stood at present. The same
was the case with the Hon. Gentleman's c wn argu-
ment, which rested mainly on the u-e of the weird "acts,"
which was omitted from the Bill. The Hon. Gentleman
said, moreover, that if this Bill passed the Archbishop
of Dublin would be unable to exercise the spiritual
duties which ho now exercised. If such were
the :case he would,;remind the Hon. Gentleman and the
House that such had been the case ever since 1829, be-
cause that title had been prohibited by law ewer since
that time. Again, he would remind the Hon . Gentle-
man that in 1831 a Bill was passed to legalise :marriages
among Roman Catholics. Now marriage was. a solemn
sacrament of religion among Roman Catholics, and the
Bill was introduced into the House withort th e prelimi-
nary form.
Mr. ROEBUCK was of opinion that tk is was a
question affecting religion, and as such came under the
meaning of the standing order. At the present; moment
Roman Catholic priests were not prohibited fr cm taking
titles of aces which were not already appropriated by
bishops of the Established Church, and a pe mon bear-
ing the title of Biihop of Westminster could receive be-
quests to be applied to the benefit of his owl] religion.
It' however, it passed be would not be
able to do so, and for that reason he con-
sidered this was a Bill which interfereed with
religion, and the Soble Lord himself had acki towledged
that, by proposing to extract certain clauses from the
Bill, and had thus put himself cut of court.
The SPEAKE le said, having been appealed to
by two Honourable Members to state what his
opinion upon this matter was, perhaps the House would
allow him to do so as shortly as he could. There
was no authority founded upon any decision of the
House for determining what was meant by the phrase
" Bills relating to religion," but having look, id closely
into the reports of Bille which had passed the House
which bore upon matters of religion ho thought
it was not necessary to pass a Bill through a
Committee of the whole House, unless the
Bill related to the epiritualities of religion. True,
the Church Temporalities Act went throw] gh Com-
mittee, as Lad been stated by en Hon. Mem') bat to
show that it was not because it related to religion that it
W 33 carried into Committee, he might mutation that
there was no ',lllusion made to the standing order now
under discuesion, and the Bill passed throup;h just as
though it had been a money Bill. Then mate the Biii
for cerrjing into of sct the report of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners. That was not introduced in :5 Commit-
tee of the whole House, because it vt as Buns used to re-
late to temporal and not spiritual matters, and fur pre-
cisely the same reason the Irish Marriage Act did
not go through a preliminary Committee. Under
all those circumstances he was of opinion that the Bill
now before the House was not one which it was neces-
sary to introduce into Committee of the wh ele House.
(Hear, hear.) He was consulted upon this sub-
ject in the first instance without, of course,
being made acquainted with the whole of its
provisione, and he gave the same opinion then; and
having since carefully considered the Bill, he saw no
reason whatever to change that opinion.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said it appeared to him that
the opinion of the Speaker went upon the assumption
that this Bill interfered with religion no further than did
those Bills which the Right Hon. Gentleman had re-
ferred to; but that assumption was decidedly erroneous.
He had considerable doubts whether, looking at the pro-
visions of the Bill, it was not a measure altering
the laws concerning religion, and imposing pains
and penalties on a portion of the people. Though
he bowed with deference to the opinion of
the Speaker, yet until they had submitted
to him a proper case for his consideration,
he thought they ought not to abide by the opinion which
he had just given to the House.—(Hear.) He would
suggest that they should take the same course which was
adopted with the Irish Temporalities Bill, and appoint
a Select Committee to examine into precedents, and re-
port whether, according to the orders and rules of the
House, the Bill should have
,been introduced in a Com-
mittee of the whole House.—(Hear.)
Mr. GRATTAN said it was absurd to suppose that
this was a measure which did not affect the religion of
his fellow-countrymen. It was a mockery, an insult,
and an attempt to play upon words, for the Noble Lord
at the bead of the Government to make such an
assertion. Had they not for the last few months
been almost entirely occupied in discussing reli-
gious subjects ? The ferment which the Bill
had already given rise to, and was likely
to increase would make the Ministers regret to the last
day of their lives that they had passed such a measure.
They had neither the courage, determination, or mind
to get Ireland out of the diffieulties in which their inso-
lence and overbearing language had placed her. If the
Bill were passed, the House would not only be made the
laughing-stock of the three kingdoms, but of the world
Mr. REYNOLDS moved that the debate, be now ad-
journed, in order to afford time to inquire into prom
deuce,

Mr. HUME was quite ready to consent to the ad-
journment of the debate.
Mr. KEOGH contended that the Bill affected the :pi-
ritualities of the Roman Catholic Church, and read the
written opinion of Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Brodie, convey-
ancer, and Mr. Baddeley, stating that the Bill would ren-
der it illegal for any archbishop or bishop of the Roman
Catholic Church to exercise their official functions in
this country that they might be merely of a spiritual
nature.