The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-23 00:00:00

ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS REPEAL
BILL.

The Bishop of LONDON withdrew his amendment,
and the Bill went through Committee, and was ordered
to be printed.

The Soap Allowances Bill was read a second time.
REGISTRATION OF CHAPELS BILL.
Lord TEYNHAM moved the second reading of this
Bill, the object of which was to repeal so much of the
present Acts relating to this subject which prevented
religious service before registration. It was further de-
signed to allow a minister of the Gospel to preach in an
unregistered chapel to a congregation not exceeding 40
in number.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the law allowed
every family to pray together, and allowed visitors or
persons accidentally present, besides the family, up to the
number of twenty, to join in the prayer. The Noble
Lord did not object to the registration, and why should
not the registration take place before the building should
be named as a chapel ? Ile saw no reason for altering
the law, and opposed the Bill.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER also opposed the Bill.
and moved that it be read a second time that day three
months.

Lord TEYNH AM replied.
The motion for the second reading was negatived with
out a division, and the Bill was lost.

Lord TEYNIIAM presented a petition from the pa-
rish of Marylebone, complaining of the operations of the
Anatomy Act, as offensive to the feelings of the poor.
The petitioners prayed to be allowed to prove their al-
legations at the bar.

Their Lordships adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COiiMONS, July 22.
;Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.
RAILWAYS BILL.

On the motion that the House resolve itself into a
Committee on the Railways Bill,
Mr. MORRISON said, that some few years ago the
Government of the country appeared to be altogether
opposed to any interference with railroads, in conse-
quence of which greater enterprise was manifested by
capitalists to embark in railroad speculations. It would
have been much better if the Government had shown
this desire of interference some years ago. If the pre-
sent Bill passed, the public would be benefited to the
extent of more numerous competing lines, but the pro-
prietors of existing railroads would be most materially
injured. He thought, that if a tariff of lid. or 2d. per
mile was levied on competing lines, it would have the
effect of causing a reduction of fares, if that was
the object of the Bill. The best objection to the
Bill was, that it was unnecessary. With re-
gard to third-class carriages, he thought that
public opinion would soon correct the abuse of delaying
poor persons travelling in the third class. He was best
acquaintedthat a
witgliretahtehmGperreactelVeenst ightemrnßt be made i
Railroad, and
th
hee
thought
third-class carriages. He also thought that the comfort
of those persons who travelled in the second-class car-
riages was also too much neglected. Another abuse
was that some carriers were favoured more than others
by the directors. He thought that lists of the prices of
carrying goods ought to be left with the Board of Trade,
and that they should adhere to those price;. He did
not think that railway companies ought to be liable to a
penalty of 10/. for parcels which might be lost. On
grounds of public policy, he thought that such a pro-
vision was necessary with regard to stage coaches ;
but railroads were circumstanced so differently
that he thought they ought not to be made
subject to a penalty for lost parcels. He
had great faith in the atmospheric principle upon
railways, and he thought it would soon become exten-
sively adopted. He did not thoroughly approve of the
Bill of the Government, because it passed by three lead-
ing points—revision, tariff, and lease.
Mr. WILLIAMS did not think this Bill went far
enough in protecting the public. He thought greater
powers ought to have been taken by the Board of Trade
with respect to the revision of railways ; and he thought
that the provisions of the Bill ought to have been ex-
tended to old as well as to new companies. He hoped
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board
of Trade, would consent to extend the clause rela'ing
to third-class passengers to all existing companies.
Third-class passengers had hitherto been treated
in the most inconsiderate, unjust, and cruel manner,
by existing railway companies, and he hoped
therefore, that all companies ought to be made
to come under the operation of the third-class passen-
gers' clause in this Bill. He thought, too, that power
should be given for the revision, by the Board of Trade,
of the carriage traffic on a railway, as well as the pas-
senger traffic.
Colonel SIBTHORP had no hesitation in saying that
the present Bill was a very similar Bill to that which
was originally before the House. More than half the
clauses had been struck out, and the Bill was most par-
tial in its operations. The Bill would have the effect of
establishing a monopoly in favour of existing railway
companies.
Mr. V. SMITH had expected that some statement
would have been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman
with respect to the alterations which he had proposed.
Great alteration had been made, and he thought that
only one day for their consideration was too short a time
especially without any explanation by the Right Hon
Gentleman.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. GLADSTONE rose and said he would take that
opportunity of explaining the alterations which had
been
made in the Bill. He did not think that the public in-
terest would be prejudiced by the abandonment of the
clauses which had been struck out of the Bill. The Hon.
Member for Lincoln appeared to imagine that in the Bill
as it originally stood the option of revision and purchase
was made applicable to existing railway companies.
He could assure his Hon. Friend that such was
not the case. That part of the Bill remained
exactly the same. His Hon. and Gallant Friend came
forward with great sympathy for the poor, and took
objection to this Bill on that ground. Now the Bill in
this respect remained unaltered; and therefore if his
Hon. and Gallant Friend was satisfied with the original
Bill, he must also be satisfied with the present one.
There was one material relaxation in the term of the
option of revision or purchase—that was, that the right
of purchase should not accrue until after twenty-one
years, instead of fifteen years, after the passing of the
Act of incorporation, as originally intended. This he
thought was a very material alteration. Another change
in the Bill was, that the right of revision being
once exercised should not be again exercised within the
further term of twenty-one years. The Bill in its pre•
sent state provided that when a railway should be pur-
chased, it should be taken at the, value at which it might
be estimated at the time of the purchase. He thought
this was an improvement in the Dill. Then, again, it ,

Lord BEAUMONT moved that this Bill be committed.
The Bishop of LONDON said that the proposed Act
was neither more nor less than an Act to restore the
supremacy of the Pope in this realm.—(Hear, hear.)
He assured the House, that if they were to pass such a
measure—repealing the Act of Uniformity and thirty
other Acts, and at the same time interfering with the pre-
rogative of the Crown—they would create great alarm
throughout the country. He moved that the Bill be
committed this day three months.
Lord BEAUMONT was surprised that at this time a
Rev. Prelate could be found to oppose the repeal of those
laws which still kept the scaffold and the axe suspended
over the heads of his Catholic fellow-subjects. Until
those Acts were repealed, no Catholic, however loyal,
was secure of his estates. He believed that there were
people willing to bring into operation those obsolete
Acts, as their Lordships had seen this day there were
persons seeking to enforce far less atrocious Acts. He
had no wish to injure the Established Church, but if the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack would point
out, amongst the Acts which he proposed to repeal, any
that were necessary to the safety or the power of the
Established Church, he would willingly leave them out
of his schedule. The Commissioners of Criminal Law
Inquiry, in their seventh report, strongly dwelt upon
the necessity of abolishing those laws, and they quoted
the eloquent language of Justice Blackstone condemna-
tory of those cruel and impolitic laws.
The Bishop of LONDON explained. He agreed that
many of those laws ought to be repealed. But the
Noble Lord proposed to repeal some Acts that were
necessary for the security of the Church. What he now
chiefly objected to was the season at which the Bill was
brought in—a season when it could not be adequately
discussed, and when it could scarcely be expected that
it would pass the House this year. Surely, the Noble
Lord did not think that in the next six months the
Roman Catholics would be in a worse condition than
they were now. It was certainly right that the liabili-
ties mentioned by the Noble Lord, although not enforced,
should be done away with. But no inconvenience would
be suffered by delaying it until the beginning of next
session, when the Bishops, the rulers and defenders of
the Church, would be present in the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had him-
self examined the Bill, and had referred it to the Com-
missioners of Criminal Law Inquiry, who struck out
some of the clauses. He now believed that there was
not a single clause in the Bill, as it stood at present,
to which any reasonable person could object. He won-
dered that any one could say at the present day that it
was necessary for the security of the Church that any
one who a second time denied the supremacy of the
Queen should be transported. By that law every priest
who said mass was still liable to the severest penalties.
He would recommend the Noble Lord to withdraw his
motion, and the Right Rev. Prelate to withdraw his, so
that the Bill might be printed and every Member of the
House be enabled to see what its objects really were.
Lord CAMPBELL was sure that if the Right Rev.
Prelate examined the Bill he would find that it was not
liable to the objection which the Right Reverend Prelate
supposed. He (Lord Campbell) suggested that the Bill
should go into Committee pro forma.
The Earl of WICKLOW approved of the Bill, which
would give great satisfaction to the Roman Catholics,
especially in Ireland, and could not possibly affect the
Established Church. He was sorry that the Bill was
now to be obstructed.—(Hear.) He thought that the
lateness of the session and the absence of the Prelates
were not sufficient reasons for putting off useful mea-
sures. Why were not the Bishops in their places as well
as other Lords ?—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend de-
served the thanks of the Catholics and of all liberal-
minded men for bringing in his Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON would press his opposition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that after what had
passed in the House, and what had been stated in a pub-
lic print, it was absolutely necessary for his own justifi-
cation that he should ask their Lordships to print the
Bill. He thought the House might go into Committee
pro forma, and the Bill be printed, that the House and
the public might see what the Bill was. He had already
declared that he had struck out every clause that would
be doubtful. As for the absence of the Bishops, he did
not see how it was necessary to be a divine, in order to
judge whether the Church would be endangered by
allowing a Catholic gentleman to send his son abroad
for his education.