§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received information that Mr. James Cassells, a British subject residing and carrying on business at Oporto, was sentenced in November last by a Portuguese Court to banishment for six years, for the crime of "wanting in respect to the Roman Catholic religion," such want of respect consisting only in conducting an ordinary Protestant service in his own house; whether this sentence is not an infringement of the religious liberty guaranteed to British subjects in Por- 126 tugal by the Treaty of Lisbon in 1842; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any Memorial, or made any and what representations to the Portuguese Government on the subject?
MR. OTWAYsaid, it was true that Mr. James Cassells, a British subject residing and carrying on business in Oporto, was sentenced in November last by a Portuguese Court to banishment for six years; but his hon. and learned Friend was incorrect in saying that it was for the crime of "wanting in respect to the Roman Catholic religion," such want of respect consisting only in conducting an ordinary Protestant service in his own house. The facts of the case were these:—Mr. Cassells was put upon his trial before the Judge of the Court of first Instance at Oporto, and a Portuguese jury, having waived his privilege to a mixed jury, and two distinct charges were submitted to the jury by the presiding Judge in the following terms:—1. Was it proved that the prisoner, acting in contravention of the religion of the country, by law established, had held meetings in his own house composed of individuals residing in his own parish and in the neighbourhood; 2. Was it proved that he had by reading, by speech, or by act induced three individuals to hold doctrines at variance with the religion of the country, and had he endeavoured to make proselytes and converts to a religion not approved by the Church? The Judge further submitted the following point in extenuation:—Were the good conduct and charities of the prisoner, at the time of his alleged criminal act, proved as an extenuating circumstance in his favour? Of these three points the jury decided the first two in the affirmative, by majorities, and they unanimously assented to the last proposition. The Judge, in conformity with. Article 130 of the Penal Code, sentenced Mr. Cassells to banishment from the kingdom for a period of six years, and to pay the costs of trial. Mr. Cassells immediately appealed to a Superior Court, and the result of that appeal was not yet known at the Foreign Office. Of course his hon. and learned Friend would see that pending that appeal it would not be in conformity with the custom of the Government to take any further proceedings in the matter. It appears that the authorities undertook these proceedings against Mr. Cassells 127 with, very great reluctance, and that they spared no efforts to induce him to desist from practices which they considered to be illegal. However, his hon. and learned Friend must not suppose that the matter was one of indifference to the British Government. The interests of Mr. Cassells had been watched over by Mr. Crawford, the British Consul at Oporto, who had instructed counsel to attend; and Her Majesty's Minister had been instructed to request of the Portuguese Government that no delay should take place in having the appeal heard. When the result of that appeal reached Her Majesty's Government it would be for them to consider whether it was necessary to take any further proceedings or not. With regard to the other part of the Question he might say, that the Earl of Clarendon had received communications from the Wesleyan body and also from the Scottish Reformation Society on the subject.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, the second part of his Question had not been answered.
MR. OTWAYsaid, it would be premature to give any opinion upon that until they knew the result of the appeal, and had an opportunity of considering the evidence.