The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-31 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 31, 1851.

Such was the spirit in which our ancestors, oven when
beloni.;ing in in ~tters of religion to the Roman Catholic
faith, thought it necessary to frame their Acts of Parlia-
ment; such was the protection which they, these Roman
Catholic English—as free men—deemed it necessary to
give against the pretensions of Rome to the rights, liber-
ti le, privileges of this c enutry, and to the authority,
dignity, and p re-eminence of the Crown, regal and imperial;
and he desired no other and no greater spirit to be shown by
the House of Commons of the present time, when by this
rescript of the Popo the rights, liberties, and privileges
of the country were menaced, and the authority, dignity,
and pre-eminence of the Crown, regal and imperia', in-
vaded.—(Cneerii.) They were now to ,do cid° either
that this rescript was unlawful, as every lawyer in the
House who had spoken had maintained or admitted it to
be; or else they were to declare that they not only
allowed the rescript to be lawful, but that when any
Papal instruments came into this country, whether bulls,
rescripts, or letters-apostolic, however they might shock
the spirit of the nation, or oppose the authority of the
Queen, Parliament had no right to resent such a pro-
ceeding, but must ask some Roman Catholic authority
whether, according to Roman Catholic views, the pro-
ceeding involved only a matter of spiritual jurisdiction.
—(Hear, hear.) They must look through the Papal
decrees to ascertain how far the definition of spiritual

affsirs extended, and when a Roman Catholic authority
declared a subject to he of a spiritual nature, the power
and jurisdiction of Parliament would be at once at an
end.—(Elear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said, the Noble Lord had stated
that the House ought not to be ruled by the opinions of
Roman Catholic doctors and lawyers upon the point at
issue. Now he (Sir J. Graham) hoped there was no
Member of that House more sincerely and warmly Pro-
testant than himself. He was not guided by the opinions
either of Roman Catholic doctors or of Roman Catholic

lawyers. He had expressed own dispassionate judg-
ment on the question. The Noble Lord had also unin-
tentionally misrepresented him upoa one point. The
Noble Lord said that, in quoting the doctrine of Mr.
Berke, that one sect was a very indifferent judge of what
was necessary for the free exercise of the religion of
another sect, he (Sir J. Graham) had applied the re-
mark generally to the question before the House. He
had done nothing of the kind. The point to which he
applied the doctrine was this :—an Hon. and Learned
Friend of his had said that it was necessary to legislate,
in order to relieve the hardships under which Lord
Camoys, Lord Beaumont, and other members of the
Roman Catholic faith, who were deemed recusants
by their Church, might suffer; and he (Sir J. Gra-
ham) observed, that ho considered it unnecessary
for them, as Protestants, to legislate with a view to
relieve the religious scruples of a certain number of

persons.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL said, the Noble Lord had as-
sumed that the act of the Pope was an intentional insult
to the great body of this nation, and the Noble Lord
also assumed that that act, with such intention, was
favourably regarded by the Roman Catholics of this
country. Ho (Mr. O'Ferrall) could only say that any
act of the Pope or of any other sovereign which tended
wantonly to insult her Majesty or this country would
meet the most loyal and determined resistance from
Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Ferrall)
believed, however, that the Pope had no such intention,
though he was willing to admit that the terms of the
rescript, and the manner in which it was made known
to the English people, might, by persons unaccustomed
to the form of such documents—(A laugh)—be deemed
to some extent offensive; but the form used iu this case
was the same as had been adopted for many years. He
considered it was an act of very great injustice to attach
blaine on this ground to the whole Catholic public of
this kingdom, and to make them responsible either for
the acts of the Pope or of Cardinal Wiseman. He
believed that if the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell),
instead of writing his letter, had ascertained
whether the supposed insult was intentional or inad-
vertent, he would not have thought it necessary to come
down to the House with the present Bill,—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord considered that the regality of the
Queen was affected by documents issued by the Pope,
but it appeared to him (&tr. O'Ferrall) to refer solely
to a spiritual jurisdiction. He could assure the Com-
mittee that if the Noble Lord had proposed a declara-
tion setting forth in plain and distinct language that
neither Protestant nor Catholic in this country would
allow any power, spiritual or temporal, Pope or Em-
peror, to interfere with the rights and liberties of the
nation, such a declaration would have been most readily
subscribed by every Catholic—(Hear, hear)—and he
thought, even after all that had passed, it was not yet
too late to consider the question in that light. He ob-
jected to this Bill on the ground that if it were adopted
religions liberty would depend not upon the interpreta-
tion of the clauses, but upon the will of the Minister
of the Crown—(Hear, hear)—because at any time
when a Minister chose to put the measure in force to
suit his purpose, he might commence prosecutions which
would interfere materially a ith the religious privileges
of Catholics.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HOBLIO USE denied that the temporal authority
of the Sovereign had been interfered with by the act of
the Pope, and it was his firm conviction that in the
course of six years this question would be looked upon
in this country in a very different manner from that in
which it was then viewed. They should recollect that
the Roman Catholic religion was not endowed—that it
was in the sine position as the several bodies of dis-
senters in this country, therefore any interference with
the internal affairs of that religion was a hardship and
an injustice. Ho wished to know why this Bill should
be extended to Scotland, no Roman Catholic bishop
having been appointed in that country under the re-
script of the Pope. lie, therefore, wished to know
whether the Noble Lord would have any objection to
exclude Scotland from the Bill. Foreigners coming to
thin country at this moment must be astonished at the
course of their legislation on this matter.. While the
Pope only did so innocent an act as that appointing an
archbishop of Westminster, he would not be led aside by
popular clamour to vote for a measure which he consi-
dered was unjust in its operation.
Mr. H. GRATTAN hoped that the irrisistible speech
of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, and
the style, the toile, the temper, and forbearing remarks
of the ex-governor of Malta, would make their due im-
pression upon the Government. They were going to
decide the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, and ho beg-
ged to tell them that the Irish would not submit to have
that peace and tranquillity disturbed by any such impo-
tent Bill as that of the Noble Lord. Even at the eleventh
hour he ventured to enter his protest against these pro-
ceedings. The late Sir R. Peel had told them that Ire-
land was his diffi If this Bill passed Ireland would
be their impossibility. He had no hesitation in saying
that if they wanted to make Repealers in Ireland they
could not have a better recruiting sergeant than the
Noble Lord. If they carried out this measure in all its
integrity they would rue it to tho last day of their po-
litical existence.

REYNOLDS said that notwithstanding four
months' consideration of thin measure, the greatest dif-
ferences of opinion existed respecting it between states-
men on the one hand and lawyers on the other. The
Attorney-General now said that this Bill would extend
to Ireland, and the Honourable and Learned Member
for Midhurst said directly the reverse. An experienced
statesman—one to whose judgment and wisdom the
public of all classes appealed with confidence—
he meant the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ri-
pon, had addressed a speech that evening to the House,
and, though no lawyer, he made the matter so clear as
to have ended all controversy about it. And the lawyers
opposite, in their attempt to answer him, had merely re-
peated their already-expressed opinions. To him they
v
afforded an apt illustration of the character drawn by
Goldsmith of the village schoolmaster—
. me parson himself was forced to own his skill
Right Hon. Baronet, had said nothing new, but had taken
care to steer clear of all arguments, falling back upon
his memorable speech when he asked leave to introduce
this Bill, and quoted from the legislation of what he
termed his "Catholic ancesters,"
Lard though
also, though snquis te
adffecting to reply to the he would argue still."
The Why should the Ca-
NFoborleevLerd
tholics be placed in a worse position now than they were
before the publication of the Pope's rescript? The clause,
properly construed, was a declaration of religious dis-
qualification, if not of religious war, against ten mil-
lions of the Queen's sabtects.—(oh, oh.) What had the
Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of Ireland done
to merit such a Bill? He would tell the Noble Lord.
They had preserved the peace—they had reconciled the
le to misgovernment on the one hand, and to star-
Fop h —(011, oh.) Pass this Bill for Ire-
vation on the other.— or.
lend, and the Roman Catholic Members for Ireland
would not, he believed, trouble that House with their
presence during the remainder of the session.—( A laugh.)
The Bill was made up of shreds and patches—part of it
hal, part of it to Midhurst, and part of
belonging to Youg,
it to the Master of the Rolls. Let the House do some
business.—(ob, and a laugh.) Let the Noble Lord
withdraw his Bill. He (Mr. Reynolds) would advise
him to bespeak a compartment for it in the Crystal Pa-
lace.—(Laughter, and cries of " Oh," and Question.")
Yes, he advised him to place it under a glass case, and
exhibit it there as a prime specimen of Whig legislation
in the year 1851, for the purpose of insulting and coerc-
ing the Catholics of the United kingdom,
Mr. OSWALD, amid cries of "Divide,"
said
be
thopght it would be well if the House were informed by
the Lord-Advocate, and made completely to understand
what was the state of the law in Scotland with regard to
the subject betore it proceeded to a division.
The LORD-ADVOCATE replied that that did not
appear to be necessary; for, whatever might be the sup-
posed force of the old statute referred to by the Hon ,
Gentleman the other night, it would not in the slightest
degree interfere with the proceeding in which the House
was now engaged. The Hon. Gentleman stated the other
night that an old Act,
,dated in 1567, entitled " An Act
for abolishing the pope Pea( laugh)—was still in force
in Scotland. Now the state of the law ho conceived to
be this—an Act, passed in 1700, ratified and re-enacted,
not that statute directly, but certain other statutes by
name, and, generally, all Acts against the power of the
Pope. The Act 33 Geo. 111. abolished all the penalties
which were enacted against the Roman Catholics by these
statutes; and, as be read the Act 9 and 10 of Victoria
(1846), that Act of 1700, with all the Acts ratified by it,
was absolutely and completely repealed.
Mr. OSWALD—The Act of 1567 was on the statute-
hook, and the 33 Geo. ILI. repealed, not the Acts, but
the penalties mentioned in certain Acts recited in the
statute of 1700. All that the Act of 1846 did was to
repeal the statutes mentioned in the Act of 1700, the
penalties for which had been repealed by the 33d Geo. 111.
He submitted, therefore, that the Lord-Advocate had
not laid any ground whatever from which the Committee
might conclude that the statute of 1567 had been repealed.
Mr. OSWALD made several subsequent attempts to
address the Committee, but he was received with con-
stant cries of " Oh," and " Divide." He was understood
to move the Chairman to report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not understand the motive
of the motion. The Lord-Advocate had declared the
law of Scotland, though he was not called upon to do

so; but the chine had nothing whatever to do with
Scotland. The Hon. Gentleman had not therefore the

smallest grounds for the course he had taken.
Mr. OSWALD said the House had bean told over
and over that they were only declaring the existing law.
As a Member for Scotland. he had a right to know what
was the law of Scotland. He threw the responsibility of
refusal oa the Governmnpt.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY' hoped his Hon. Friend would
not divide the House. The clause had nothing to do
with Scotland, and only declared the law. The Hon.

Gentleman, in throwing any impediment in the way of
the Bill, had combatted the general feeling of Scotland.
Mr. REYNOLDS objected to the withdrawal of the
motion—(Cries of " Oh")—on the ground that he had
asked a question.—(Crios of" Divide.") He would

move motion after motion until he was heard. The

question was one of the greatest importance to his coun-
try, and h© stood on his right to hava his opinions
heard. He had put a question to the Attorney-Gene-

ral for England in the course cf his observations that

evening, and until it was answered in a satisfactory
manner he should persevere. His question was, suppos-
ing the Bill to be law, in the event of an election for the
Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, would the Pope's bull
ratifying that election be illegal under the Act?
Mr. DISRAELI suggested that it would be better to
hear the Lord-Advocate than have an unnecessary divi-
sion. As far as he (Mr. Disraeli) could collect the feel-
ing of the Committee, they wished to hear the opinion of
the Lord-Advocate, but though a Minister of course
never rose without having something to say, the Lord-
Advocate had resumed his seat without a word. It
would be better to listen to his opinion than to have an
unnecessary division.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Lord-Advocate had ex-
pressed his readiness to answer the question; but the
general cry of " No" from the Committee caused him to

resume his seat.
The LORD-ADVOCATE had not replied for two
reasons. First, because he had answered the question
before; and, secondly, because the question had little
or nothing to do with the clause. In his opinion the Act
of 1568 was not in force, but repealed.--(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL reminded the Hon. Member for
Dublin that any rescript appointing a Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin would be illegal by the 10th of
George IV., and that no Roman Catholic ecclesiastic

could assume that title.
Mr. REYNOLDS repeated his question. Until he
received a❑ answer he should support the motion.
Mr. OSWALD expressed himself satisfied.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that a rescript

appoiutin; a —Roman Catholic hish9p or archbishop,
with a territorial title, would be illegal under the sta-
tute of George IV., and under the general law of the
land, as declared by the clause before the Committee.
Mr. REYNOLDS would not now persevere, though

the answer was not satisfactory.—(Laughter.)
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the
Committee then divided on the original motion—namely,
that the clause stand part of the Bill—when there ap-
peared—
For the clause 244
Against it ... ... 62
Majority ... ...-182
Lord J. RUSSELL said they had now got through
the first clause, and the second clause was one upon
which ho apprehended there would be considerable
delay, from the number of amendments standing for dis-
cussion. He proposed, therefore, that the Chairman
should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The
first clause had been very fairly debated; but with r-
gard to another clause, he wished to suggest to those
Hon. Gentlemen who were supporters of the Bill, and
who meant to make amendments, to consider whether
there was anything in those amendments which
would carry the enactments of the Bill further.
There were others of so objectionable a characeir
that it would be impossible for the Governmedt
to consent to them. He therefore wished Hon. Members,
without entering on any discussion of the subject on the
present occasion, to consider before Monday whether
there were any of those amendments which they consi-
dered of sufficient importance to press on the attention
of the Committee. The Bill, as it appeared to him in
its present shape, stamped with a penalty the rescript of
September, 1850, and by its second clause would render
penal the assumption of titles to sees of existing bishops;
and these two clauses would form a declaration by Par-
liament sufficiently strong and authoritative to vindicate
the authority of the Crown, of Parliament, and of the
nation. He therefore wished those Hon. Members who
thought the Bill might be improved by the addition of
the proposed clauses to consider whether the delay which
must be expected from the divisions that must take place
would not more than counterbalance the advantage which
would be gained by persevering with those amendmente.
He did not wish to raise any discussion, but in moving
that the Chairman report progress, he thought it right
to ask Hon. Members to take this into consideration.
Mr. WALPOLE said, as he entertained a very strong
opinion on some portion of these amendments, it might
be convenient to acquaint the Government that the first
amendment on the second clause which he should pro-
pose related to three things—first, to subject persons to
penalties not merely for the assumption of ecelesiasticall
titles, but for these three matters—first, if a pen();
should do or assume to do any act, matter, or thing,
under a brief declared to be unlawful; secondly, if any
person should obtain or cause to be procured from the
Bishop of the see of Rome, or publish or put in use ansT
brief, rescript, letters apostolical, or writing for the pur-
pose of constituting a hierarchy with titles derived froth
places belonging to the Crown of England; thirdly, if
any person, under colour of any authority from the
Bishop of Rome, assume or claim to have or exercise any
authority. over guy pruviuuo or diocese within the United
Kingdom. With regard to the first, he thought it a no.
csssary consequence of declaring the brief unlawful,
and, therefore, on that he would take the opinion
of the Committee. On the second, he thought it was
advisable that the opinion of the Committee and the
House should be taken upon it in order to avoid fresh le,
gislation. He had his doubts as to number 3, becausti
there was an ambiguity in the clause, and there might
be more difficulty in enforcing that prohibition than id
the other two. With regard to what was called thq
prosecutor's clause, it might bo convenient to state that
he intended to adopt the suggestion of his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member for Abingdon. It might
also be convenient to state, in answer to an observatiori
made by the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone,
with reference to the proviso, that there should be no
prosecution under the first clause without the assent of
the Attorney-General—that he thought the proviso of
the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone might be in-
corporated with the proposal of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Abingdon. He also wished to press the se-
cond and third paragraphs in the preamble very strongly
on the attention of the Committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL must leave the Hon. and Learned
Member to take his own course; but for his own part
ho could not consent to any of the amendments which he
intended to propose. There was one, however, to which
ho felt perhaps a stronger objection than the others, as
to which he had not stated his intentions, namely, that
part in which he proposed to visit the second offence
with a penalty in addition to deportation. He should
be disposed to oppose the infliction of any pecuniary
penalty whatever.
Mr. WALPOLE would rather reserve what ho had
to say on that point till Monday, when he would state
generally the course which ho intended to pursue.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again.
CUSTOMS BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. DISRAELI reminded the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer of the notice which he had given, after the
great change which had taken place in the financial
scheme of the Government, that he would claim the
right to reconsider that scheme, and he must say, for
himself and others who were absent, that they could not
allow any of the measures connected with it to proceed
without discussion, and he therefore hoped that the
Government would not persevere with the second read-
ing on that occasion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had
not understood that the Hon. Member intended to op-
pose the financial proposals of the Government, though
he knew that he desired to have some discussion on
some part of them. The Hon. Gentleman bad not
offered the slightest opposition to the course which he
had proposed.
Mr. DISRAELI had certainly said that there was no
intention of opposing the plans of the Government, but
that was before the House had come to the resolution
that the income-tax should only be voted for one year.
But after that important vote was arrived at, he consi-
dered it perfectly fair for his side of the House to deal
with the financial propositions of the Government with
reference to the effect of that important vote.—(Hear.)
Mr. MITCHELL hoped that no great delay would be
allowed to intervene in passing these measures, as the
delay was injurious to trade.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
not press the measure at the present moment, ender the
circaxmstances; but it was desirable that no time should
be lost.
After some further conversation,
The Bill was postponed till Monday next.
INHABITED HOUSE DUTY BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. DISRAELI said ho regarded this Bill also as part
of the same financial scheme, and therefore hoped the
Government would not press it at that moment.
Lira J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member had cer-
tainly reserved to himself the liberty to support or op-
pose the Customs Bill.
The Bridges (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and
mTonhe da3s,ed reading of the Bill was than postponed till
.coe
passed.
COLONIAL PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.
Mr. HUTT moved the second reading of the Colonial
Committeeinplz:oarf:mY.ents
Property Qualification Bill.
(Ireland) Bill passed through
Mr. STANFORD said he was opposed to all attempts
of the kind to alter the Morns Bill. fie moved that
the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD seconded the amendment, on
the grouud that they ought not to extend what ho
considered the objectionable practice of requiring any
qualification for seats in that House.
After a few words from Mr. HUTT and Mr. MUL•
LIFGS in defence of the Bill, •
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it -

... 72
... 31

Majority for the second reading .:; —4l
The Bill WILI therefore read a second time.
Mr. LABOUCLIERE move for leave to introduce a
Bill to alter and amend certnia provisions of the Land
Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 in Ireland. The ob-
ject of the Bill was to substitute a system of arbitration
irk place of trials by juries in carrying out the Act of 1845.
_ Colonel DUNNE expressed his disapproval of the Bill.
It would introduce into Ireland a principle which was
not in force in this country.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
Oa the motion of Colonel ANSON, leave was given to
bring in a Bill to continue the survey of Great Britain,
B3rwiek-upon-Tweed, and the le of Man.
On the motion of Mr. 71ULLINGS, leave was given
to bring in a Bill for further remedying a defect in the
titles of lands purchased for charitable purposes, and
for obviating difficulties as to copyhold or customary
lands conveyed for such purpose.
Adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock.