CATHOLIC DISABILITIES. (Hansard, 9 February 1847)

§ MR. WATSON
moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the further repeal of enactments imposing pains and penalties upon Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects on account of their religion. The hon. and learned Member said, the Bill he proposed 1060 to bring in, was exactly the same as that which he had introduced in the last Session: and that the principle of it had been acknowledged by two successive Acts of Parliament, one passed in 1844, and the other last year. As he understood there was no objection to the Motion, he would not trouble the House at present with any statement of the provisions of the Bill.

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
said, it appeared from the hon. and learned Gentleman's address, that he grounded his Motion for leave to bring in this Bill upon the fact that on two previous occasions the House of Commons had affirmed its principle. Now if one or two divisions of the House were entitled to any respect in reference to the earlier stages of this Bill, surely the last division, which decided triumphantly against the Bill, might with at least as much fairness, be quoted by him as conclusive against the House giving its sanction to the measure on the present occasion. It was true that the House of Commons did suffer the Bill to pass through two of its stages; but it was equally true, that on the last and most momentous occasion, the House decided by a large majority against the Bill; therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman could obtain nothing from the precedent to which he had referred. In these days of change, any change was in itself a sufficient recommendation to the great body of the people. It mattered not what it was so that it was a change; but what was the change in the present instance? The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that the Bill he wished to introduce was the same that he brought in during the last Session of Parliament. Now the Bill of last Session proposed to repeal the Act of Supremacy, to legalize the monastic orders, and to allow the prelates of the Church of Rome to assume the titles of the established bishoprics of this country. [Mr. WATSON: The Bill does not propose the repeal of the Act of Supremacy.] But if it did not do so technically and literally, it did so substantially. It left it optional to parties differing from the established religion to take the oath of supremacy or not; and at any rate it legalized the monastic orders, and allowed the prelates of the Roman Church to take the title of the established sees of the country. The Bill proposed to remove certain provisions from the Statute-book, which at the time of the passing of the Act of Emancipation it was deemed advisable to introduce into that measure. If then it was felt to be necessary, in 1829, 1061 to introduce provisions for the security of the Church and Constitution of the country against the dangers which were apprehended, he asked the House not now to suffer those provisions to be repealed, and to remove that security which was supposed to be in danger in 1829. He (Sir R. Inglis) felt that, under the circumstances, he should not be discharging his duty if he suffered such a Bill to be brought in as a matter of course, and in the manner proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ SIR G. GREY
hoped, that, having protested against the Bill, his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) would not think it necessary to insist upon a division; for the House had given leave to introduce a Bill for a similar object on two previous occasions; and he thought, therefore, that the best course to be now taken, was to allow the measure to be brought in, and to discuss its merits when it was properly before them.

§ MR. SHAW
wished to know what the Bill proposed to do beyond what was done by the Act passed in the last Session?

§ MR. WATSON
replied, that his Bill of last year embraced all that was contained in the Bill of the Government, as well as that which was contained in the present Bill; and the House would recollect that that Bill was divided into two Bills. The penalties mentioned in the Supremacy Act were repealed by the Act of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham); but there were certain infringements of the Act of Supremacy, which were still an offence at common law, and the main object of the present Bill was to repeal those penalties which affected the regular clergy of the Church of Rome.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, if his hon. Friend divided against the introduction of the Bill, he should feel it his duty to support him; and upon every future stage of the measure he should give it his decided, his most determined opposition; for he could never consent that the Church of England should be undermined by the tricks or manœuvres of any Ministry or party whatever.