The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-30 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY,

There was a debate on the sugar duties. t was ulti-
mately agreed that it would not be possible to carry any
other bill save that for continuing the existing duties,
without opening the whole wide question of the sugar du-
ties. The resolutions of the Committee of Ways and
Me

a bill founded upon them was brought in by the Chancel-
lor of the E ,cliequ.r, read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time nest day. The house was shortly
afterwards counted out.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

Sir DE LACY EVANS moved the second reading of the
Parliamentary Electors' and Freemens' Bill.

After a short discn-sion, the 8,11 was rejected on a di-
vision, by 91 against 53.
The bill for continuing the present Sugar Duties for a
month from the sth of J ulv was read a second time.
The House went into Committee on the Roman Ca-
tholic Rel•ef Bill. - _

WATSON moved the insertion of the clause of
which he had given notice, providing against the celebra-
tion of any rites or ceren3ouies in the public way, and for
the registration of Jesuits,, monks, friars, &c.

Sir A. H. Is.toms said, had be been aware the Speaker
was about to leave the chai, he would have opposed his so
doing, by dirtying that the bill be considered that day six
months. (Hear, hear.) The general tendency of the
Bill was to increase the power and influence of the Church
of Rome, as well as to remove those securities which bad
been enacted to repress that spirit, and to prevent the ex-
ercise of that power, particularly in this country, which
she was never backward to manifest. He thought it was
inconsistent with the duty of a Protestant Government
{so far as that name could be still applied) to grant the
concessions required in the measure before the house;
and particularly at the present time, when the Church of
Rome was so little entitled to any special consideration :
from the conduct of her ecclesiastics as regarded inter-
marriages,—who required a written contract that the off-
spring of such intermarriages should be educated in the
Roman Catholic faith. Well authenticated instances oc-
curred in London, in Paris, and in Cologne. (Hear.)
The Bill had been so changed, that it could scarcely be
recognised by its own parents ; nevertheless he considered
there was still sufficient evil remaining in it as to induce
Lim to move, that " the Chairman do now leave the chair
and report progress.”

The question having been put
Mr. WATSON said, thatit ewhia:dheng intentiont of injuring
the Establitdied C,,urch.
parents
etbill to be passed,
and as he was one of the so-galled the measure,
and with many others acknowledged the justice of the
principle contained in it, which was to aboet
those
alries attachrd to the professors of the Roman Catholic
religion--which still remained on their statute-books—all
persons bnuod by monastic vows who should enter this
kingdom after the passing of the act of 1829, were liable
to banishment, which was a species of legislation that
abould not be rec-gnised in this country, and the removal

of which, he said, could not in any way endanger the
safety of the Church a 3 by law established. The clauses
of the bill had been greatly modified to meet the wi,hes
and scruples of hon. gentlemen opposite, and be was pre-
pared iu committee to modify eey others that might be

considered objectionable; but he was determined to take
the sense of the house upon the mot:on of the hon. mem-
ber La. the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis.)
Sir J. GRAMAZi said that it was his intention to divide
with his honourable friend the member for Oxford, and
he would state to the house the reason which influenced
him in resolving to take that course. The learned mem-
ber opposite (Mr. Watson) appeared to think that, there
was very little gravity or importance lathe clause which
related to the assumption of Roman Catholic dignitaries
to titles which-were enjoyed by Protestant prelates, and
it appeared to him that there was something like levity
in that indifference to the question, for he(SirJ: Graham)
would say that he could not by any means regard it as an
unimportant subject. He had no objection to,see;Roman
Catholic prelates enjoying the titles of archbishops and
bishops, titles of their religion which the law conceded to
them, and which the customs of society sanctioned. He
did not object to tee the Roman Catholic Church of this
country enjoying • the full possession of its rights, titles,
and privilt ges ; but be did not think it wise theta Roman
• Catholic prelate should assume a title arising in connexion
with a district co-terminous with a similar district from
.which the title of a-Protestant dignitary was derived. The
Roman Catholic religion possessed a hierarchy of its own,
and its archbishops and bishops were recognised; but he
did not think it necessary that any of these prelates
should assume a title, not only identical with that of a
Protestant bishop, but .deriving its name from a district
co-terminous with the diocese of a Protestant bishop. It
was not necessary that a Roman Catholic prelate should
assume such a designation. There was no penalty at-
tached to giving that designation, so that the practice
would not therefore be interfered with. It was the as-
sumption of the title which the existing law was opposed
to. Such an assumption would lead to confusion, and
therefore he thought it a wise and sound provision in the
act of 1829 which went to prevent it. He was on this
ar.rnunt decidedly attached to that provision in the act of
1829—a provision made with the full concurrence of those
who passed the Catholic Relief Bill. As regarded the
second clause, relating to the appearance in pontificals in
public places of Roman Catholic dignitaries, he thought
-that some qualification was necessary with respect -to the
assembling of Roman Catholic dignitaries in public places
for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies, look-
ing at the subject as he did in reference to the present
state of public opinion; and he thought that oh tile whole,
as regarded thiti subject, the line which was drawn by the
Catholic Relief Bill was well and wisely drawn. The ap-.
pearance in pontificals or ecclesiastical robes in places of
worship and private'dwelling-houses was permitted to the
Catholic clergy at present, and be thought that was quite
sufficient, and that it was a wise arrangement. He was of
opinion that the provision which had reference to the ap-
pearance of judges and mayors with the insignia of their
respectite offices- in Catholic churches was a clause of
minor importance. It was an object of small importance
whether a mayor should go to his church in his scarlet
robe and chain, and he should say that he saw no great
hardship in the circumstance that a mayor or judge
should lay aside his robea in a _Roman Catholic chapel
or a Dissenters' meeting-house ; indeed he did not
know if there was much propriety in appearing at a
Protestant place of worship with those trappings of
office. (Hear, hear.) In this respect, also, he should
adhere to the regulation as fixed by the statute, and he
was not therefore prepared to support a clause for repeal-
ing it. He now came, however, to that which was of
infinitely more importance than the other clause which be
had mentioned, namely, that which related to the residence
of persons belonging to the regular orders of the Roman
Catholic religion. He did not partake of the extreme
jealousy with which some persons regarded these religious
orders, and he should be the last for one moment to assert
that these regular orders had any disloyal or treasonable
intent. Ile felt no jealousy on that head, and in referring
to these orders he could not forget the Jesuits ; he could
not forget that literature and the Christian religion were
under immense obligations to that particular order—(bear,
hear)—amongst the membsrs of which had been numbered
some of the most learned. and the most highly educated
of the Christian faith. (Hear, hear.) With respect to
them, and to some of the other religious orders, the Pros
testant. religion had, however, just cause of jealousy, not
on political, but on religious grounds. It was admitted
that the- regular religious orders constituted the aggressive
force of the linman Catholic Church, and that it was upon
that force it relied for conversion to the-Romish Church
of those who were heretics in its eyes, and therefore he
was of opinion that the Protestant Church had just
grounds for looking with jealousy on those orders. Con-
sidering the large body of Catholics who belonged to the
regular orders, it might with truth be said, that toleration
could not be carried into full effect if the regular orders
had been excluded. He had reason to believe, that the
Sacrament of Confession, which was a great sacrament in
the Catholic Church, was their conscientious judgment.
He thought, therefore, that a regulation which would say
that the regular orders should not be permitted, could not
be maintained by any sound argument ; but the question
was one of regulation only. As the law at present stood,
it was stringent in its provisions respecting the regular
orders ; but there was no real grievance to be complained
of. There was no doubt that monastic vows had been taken
since 1829 in this country ; that they were constantly taken
since the passing of the Relief 13ill, not only in Ireland, but
in England ; and as Secretary of State, he could say that
the Horne-office took no record of them. He stated that
practical fact, as a practical grievance had been com-
plained of, in order to show that no such practical griev-
. _ance existed _uudar the operation of _the law_ He, ho
ever, could not say it was satisfactory to state, as a mem-
ber of the executive Government, that the existence of
those regular orders was by sufferance, and not by law
(hear, hear); and, having stated that much, he would
now come to what had be or proposed to do with respect
to these statutes that were complained of. He was not
prepared to say that the present state of the law with
respect to monastic orders did not require revision, but
it was a subject which, with respect to the feelings of the
country and to the interests of the Protestant Church,
required serious consideration. In countries which were
not despotic, and which were certainly not influenced by
feelings of bigotry against those orders, and as a proof
of that he need scarcely remind the house of what had
been the course recently adopted in France with respect
to the Jesuits. With respect to the feeling which
was entertained by some persons towards those orders,
he would again remark, that they were the ag-
gressive force of the Roman Catholic Church, to
which that Church looked as the means of reclaiming
those whom they considered as heretics, from the error of
their ways. That which they considered error was, how-
ever, the basis of the tenets of the Protestant Church. So
far as regarded the general question, he did not think the
present moment was one when they could expect it to re-
ceive that dispassionate attention and calm consideration
which such a subject deserved. He would not say that he
was satisfied with the law as it present stood. (Hear )
He was, however, opposed to the alteration in the first
of the clauses proposed by the honourable and learned
gentleman, and with respect to the clause relating to the
regular orders, he would remark that at present no real
practical grievance was felt from the law which is now in
existence.

Lord Cr.tvE wished that the Church of Wales at least
hid as little to apprehend from a Protestant Legislature
as from the Roman Catholics.
Mr. W. COWPER considered the Jesuits as a most
dangerous political body, to whom the principle of tole-
ration did not apply; be would therefore support the
Amendment.

After a debate, in, which Mr. B. Escott, Mr. Fitzle-
rald, Lord Seymour, Mr. Redington, Mr. Colquhoun,
Mr. Labouchere, Lord J. Manners, and Mr. Newdegate
took part, the committee divided, on the question that the
Chairman leave the chair.
For the amendment....

Against it

Majority against the Bill .
Mr. IT. COULBURN brought in the New Zealand Bill,
which was read a first time.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
Petitions were presented against the union of the sees of
St. Asaph and Bangor.
The Earl of RIPON moved the third reading of the
Corn Bill.

A short discussion followed, not for the purpose of mak-
ing a division, but upon the subject of the promise made
by the Prime Minister relating to the equivalents which
the landed interest were to receive for any injury they
might experience from the passing of the Corn Bill.

he Earl of RIPON assured the house that the govern-
ment purposed to realise all the promises made at the
commencement of the session.

The Dukes of Cleveland and Richmond, Earl Selkirk
and Lord Gage severally expressed their bitter feelings of
disappointment at the conduct pursued by the government;
after which the bill was read a third time and passed.