The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-05-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

The Bishop of EXETER moved that their lordships
should resolve themselves into a committee on the Reli-
gious Opinions Relief Bill that day three months. He
did so because he would not, after his oath of supremacy
to his. sovereign, become a party to a measure for giving
supremacy to the Pope. (As the right rev. prelate was
about to enter on the specific grounds of his objection to
the bill, and controvert the opinions of the law lords in
regard to i is eff.-ct. he was called to order by the Lord
Chancellor, who reminded him that there was no question
before the house.) His lordship then explained in detail
the reasons which led him to doubt the accuracy of the
opinion which had been given by the noble and learned
lords. The statute of Queen Elizabeth positively inter-
dicted foreign jurisdiction. Every subject of this realm
was bound, when required so to do, to take the oath of
supremacy. That oath asserted, in the most positive
manner, that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or poten-
tate hath, :or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, or

. .
pre-eminence in this realm. Was he to be told this con-
dition was to be remitted by an act of parliament ; and
yet that the law furnishing a violation of this principle

remained in slate quo. If we abandoned the oath of
supremacy, we abandoned the constitution. The Roman
Catholic states were fully aware of the dangerous power
of the Pope, and would not allow it to be exercised with-
out due restrictions. He wished for nothing that was
inconsistent with the free exercise of the Roman Catholic
religion; but he did expect that the same restrictions
which were imposed upon the Pope in other countries
would still be imposed on him in this. His ❑oble friend
(Lord Campbell) had spoken of the " formidable danger"
which would be created by the proposed measure, and
wished to know why any such danger should be called
into existence. It was not pretended that the Roman
Catholics hod sustained any inconvenience from the law
as it now stood. The Irish Catholic Directory and Al-
manack claimed for the Pepe the exercise of power in this
country, and there could be no doubt that he had repeat-
edly attempted to exercise such power. His lordship then
referred to the allocution of which be had formerly spo-
ken, and which declared certain acts of the Spanish Go-
vernment to be null and void. His lordship alluded also
to a striking, instance of interference on the part of the
Pope, and called upon their lordships not by the proposed
bill to invite from him a repetition of the same sort of in-
terference. Their lordships ought not to consent to sur-
render securities without being fully satisfied that an
equivalent would be given for them, and without being
informed of the precise nature of the proposed equiva-

The Loan CnAsrcEnnott said that the right reverend
prelate bad been misinformed, if he supposed that every
one was bound to take theloath of supremacy, without
qualification, when tendered to him. An Act for the
Relief of Roman Catholics was passed in 1791, in which
there was a distinct clause relieving persons of that per-
suasion from the necessty of taking the oath as formerly
prescribed. Alter the many laws which had been passed
for the relief of the Roman Catholics, no person of that
religion ought to be debarred from moderately and tem-
perately asserting the supremacy of the Pope. Ilis right
reverend friend ought to have given notice of his motion,
in order that the law lords might have been in their place
to reply to the new points he had urged against the bill.
His lordship repeated, that until it had passed he would
not touch upon the subject of o..ths. Even if oaths were
allowed to continue on the footing on which they now
stood the bill ought to pass. The only questionable point
in the matter was with respect to the oath of abjuration ;
but, as there were no descendants of James II in existence,
the oath was superfluous. Their lordships had acceded
to the second reading of a bill repealing thirty acts, and
ought not, at the eleventh hour, to retrace their steps.
Some of these acts were to the last degree oppressive.
Any Roman Catholic who maintained the ecclesiastical or
spiritual authority of the Pope, in Iteland was liable, for
the first offence, to the forfeiture cf his goods, for the
second to a premunire, and for the third to be tried for
high treason.
The Bishop of St. DAVID'S regretted that he had not
been present at the discussion which preceded the second
reading of the hill. He entirely approved of the measure.
The acts which it proposed to repeal were unjust and ini•
quitous, and involved gross violations of the liberty of
the subject. There might be a justification for prohibiting
the importation of Papal bulls, but nothing could justify
the continuance of such acts in the statute book. He did
not think that there was any force or efficacy in a Papal
bull, and was therefore not prepared to consider it as dan-
gerous as it had been represented. The change made by
Pope Pius VII. in the Gallican Church ought not to have
been referred to as bearing upon the case, seeing that he
was induced to make them on the imperious demand of
Napoleon, contrary to his own wishes and conviction.
He (the Bishop of St. David's) would not be alarmed
should a Papal bull be smuggled intc this country and
affixed to the bates of the city of London and Bucking-
ham Palace. His lordship in conclusion stated that he
was prepared to carry the principle of the bill even further
than the learned lord by whom it had been brought
forward. _

The Bishop of OXFORD denied that those points of the
bill which were good and salutary had been received with
coolness or disapprobation by himself or his right reverend
friend. He was prepared to vote for going into committee,
but although be approved of some parts of the measure,
there were others which completely staggered him. The
bill, as the cotemissioners had stated, would allow and re-
cognise the power of the Bishop of Rome within this
realm. If it were passed, their lordships would be called
upon to give up the national declarations which their an-
cestors had made; and the right of the pope to exercise
spiritual power in this country would be recognised, with-
out any corresponding safeguard. He was of opinion that
the question of oaths ought to have been considered along
with the measure then before their lordships.
Lord STANLEY gave the measure. both as to its prin-
ciple and details, his cordial approval. He did not con-
sider that the proposed bill would alter the position of her
Majesty's Protestant subjects in the slightest degrice. It
did not legalise the jurisdiction of the see of Rome in this
country, but simply remitted special penalties for commu-
nications, otherwise innocent, because they came from
Rome. The law, as it now stood, repudiated the power
of excommunication on the part of a prit st, and gave the
subject a remedy against the party attempting to exercise
this tyrannical influence over him. The law denied that
the Pope has any supremacy in this country, and was in
no respect affected by the proposed bill. He did not,
therefore, see the necessity of mixing up the question of
oaths with that of penalties.
After a few words, by way of explanation, from Lord
Brougham and the Lord Chancellor the committee was
agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR proposed that their lordships
should tirst proceed with the clauses to which no opposi-
tion was likely to be made. This suggestion having been
adopted, the house went into committee, and the unop-
posed clauses were verbally amended and agreed to: after
which their lorships adjourned.