§ On the Order of the Day being moved for going into Committee on this Bill,
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, before going into Committee, he begged to put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and to the other noble and learned Lords who were so obliging as to give him their opinions on the questions he had moved on a former evening should be proposed to the Judges. He was quite sure that those noble and learned Lords would be anxious to give satisfaction even to the humble individual who now appealed to them upon a point respecting which he ventured, with extreme diffidence, to entertain some doubt as to the accuracy of the opinions they had given; and if upon reconsideration of the questions, upon the grounds which he should now put to them, they reaffirmed those opinions unanimously, and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cottenham), whom he was rejoiced to see in his place, but who was not in his place on the former evening, concurred with them, then he should certainly give those noble and learned Lords and the House no further trouble on the subject. But he was quite sure that, from the candour of those noble and learned Lords, they would permit him to state frankly the doubt he entertained as to the accuracy of their opinions. One of the questions he presumed to move should be proposed to the Judges was this:—
1. Whether, independently of so much of the Act passed in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, entitled, 'An Act restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the Estate, Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, and abolishing all 582 foreign powers repugnant to the same,' as makes it punishable to affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend, as therein is mentioned, the authority, pre-eminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of any foreign Prince, Prelate, person, State, or Potentate, theretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or to put in use, or execute anything for the extolling, advancement, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such pretended or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, and authority, or any part thereof, and of an Act passed in the fifth year of the said Queen, entitled, 'An Act for the Assurance of the Queen's Royal Power over all Estates and Subjects within Her Dominions,' it is an offence against the law of England, and punishable by the same, by writing, printing, teaching, preaching, express words, deed, or act, advisedly and maliciously, to deny the Queen's supremacy, or to affirm, maintain, and defend any such pretended or usurped power, jurisdiction, or authority of the Pope, or any other foreign Prince, Prelate, person, State, or Potentate within this realm?That was the question, and he understood the noble and learned Lords, unanimously and most clearly and distinctly to say, that to affirm, maintain, and defend any such pretended or usurped power, independently of that part of the Statute per se, and not aggravated by any special malus animus—he said special malus animus, because he apprehended that the law implied a malus animus in doing it—was not contrary to law. He believed he was right in stating that that was the opinion unanimously expressed by the noble and learned Lords. [A pause.] He might venture to take the silence of the noble and learned Lords as their assent that it was so. Now, he would briefly state to them, with sincere diffidence, the two grounds upon which he ventured to submit again to their consideration—not expressing any opinion of his own, though he frankly admitted that the subject had made a strong impression on his mind, and that he did hold a strong opinion upon it—the accuracy of—
The LORD CHANCELLORbegged to call the right rev. Prelate to order. There was no question before the House. If the right rev. Prelate had intended to call in question the correctness of the opinion given by himself (the Lord Chancellor) and the other noble and learned Lords, it would have been proper for him to have persevered in his Motion. At all events, if he intended to raise the question a second time in that House, he ought to have given notice of his intention to do so, in order that he (the Lord Chancellor) might have requested his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice to be in his place, as well as another noble and learned Lord who was not then in his place. He 583 conceived that the right rev. Prelate was most irregular.
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, his conduct might be irregular; but he was most anxious to put himself right with their Lordships as to the facts before he went into the question. He told the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and also his noble and learned Friend on the bench opposite, what he was going to do; and he heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack no objection that was likely to be made by him; whilst from the noble and learned Lord opposite, he had positive approbation of the course he was going to take.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the right rev. Prelate had certainly stated to him that he meant again to renew the question; but the right rev. Prelate never stated to him that he meant to argue it; and he did not interrupt the right rev. Prelate until he heard that the right rev. Prelate had two or three potent reasons to urge against the opinions given by himself and his noble and learned Friends.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he only understood the right rev. Prelate to say, that he meant to ask him (Lord Brougham) and his noble and learned Friends to explain the opinions they had given.
§ The Order of the Day was then read for going into Committee, upon which
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, it now became his painful duty to state the reasons which compelled him to resist the Motion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to go into Committee on this Bill; and perhaps it would be as well that he should in the very outset state the reasons in law which made him doubt the accuracy of the opinions given by the noble and learned Lords; and he was the more disposed to take that course, because he thought it was in itself a strong reason against going into Committee; for he ventured to think that if they were left, as the noble and learned Lords had told them they were, in such a state as that to affirm, maintain, and assert a foreign jurisdiction, superiority, and pre-eminence, in this realm—if they were left distinctly without any protection whatever against such an offence—if the clauses in this Bill were not struck out, then it was a strong reason why they should well consider the nature of that important point before they allowed it to become the law of the country. The noble and learned Lords said, that it was not an offence per se simpliciter to affirm a foreign jurisdiction 584 in this realm. He (the Bishop of Exeter) differed from the noble and learned Lords in their opinion. He would state to those noble and learned Lords why he thought it was an offence. Their Lordships would permit him to refer them to the clause in that important Statute of the 1st of Elizabeth—he meant Clause 16, which was as follows:—
And to the intent that all usurped and foreign power and authority, spiritual and temporal, may for ever be clearly extinguished, and never to be used or obeyed within this realm, or any other your Majesty's dominions or countries, may it please your Highness that it may be further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual and temporal, shall at any time after the last day of this Session of Parliament use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of power jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual er ecclesiastical—Their Lordships would perceive the very great protection given by that Statute. It said that they should not exercise any manner of power whatever. Be that power innocent as it might, in the contemplation of any man, yet it was not to be exercised, because the jurisdiction was foreign. The clause continued—Within this realm, or within any other your Majesty's dominions or countries that now be, or hereafter shall be; but from thenceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, and all other your Highness's dominions for ever; any statute, ordinance, custom, constitutions, or any matter or cause whatsoever to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.Now, their Lordships would see that that Statute positively enacted that all manner of foreign jurisdiction should be extinguished for ever — for ever abolished. Why, then, he contended, with all deference and submission to the opinions of those noble and learned Lords, that for any person to set forth, maintain, and affirm in any manner (he adopted the words of the Statute) any foreign jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority within this realm, was contrary to that Act of Parliament, and, being contrary to the Act of Parliament, was, by the common law of the land, a misdemeanour. That was one of the grounds upon which he ventured to submit again to those noble and learned Lords the opinions they had given the other night. But there was still another reason, and one more powerful, as he thought, which operated on his mind. Every subject of this realm was bound, when it was tendered to him, to take the Oath of Supremacy; and what did that oath assert? It asserted in the strongest 585 way that no foreign prince, prelate, State, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, or pre-eminence within this realm. Then, if any person could assert the contrary, in defiance of the oath he was bound to take—in defiance of the words of one of the most constitutional statutes, without its being an offence, the law was, he submitted, a much more unintelligible thing than they had been in the habit of considering it. But he called upon the noble and learned Lords to state their opinions upon that point; and if he were wrong, those noble and learned Lords would presently show him his error. He was no lawyer, and knew no more of law than all moderately well-educated men were bound to know: he had frankly stated his views to their Lordships at the hazard of being ridiculed on account of them. He should not be ashamed if he were taunted for holding an opinion contrary to those noble and learned Lords; but he should be ashamed if, having the strong feelings which he had upon this most important suhject, he was deterred by any consideration of selfish feelings, or reputation, or any other concern whatever, from giving to this Motion his most strenuous opposition, and adducing every argument he could honestly adduce in support of his own opinion. If he were right in that opinion, then, perhaps, the noble and learned Lords would be glad to find themselves mistaken, for they would all probably be quite satisfied as to that part of the subject if the simple punishment of a misdemeanour were retained. He, for one, should rejoice to see the penalties of a premunire struck out of the Statute-book; and all he wanted was that this grave offence against the Constitution of this Protestant land should be properly punishable as a misdemeanour. Holding then the opinion he did, if he had no other objection, he should at once have objected to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord; but he had a grave objection of another kind, an objection which he wished to hear stated with the same force and ability as he heard it stated a few nights ago, and followed by a vote, which would seem to be demanded by the expression of that opinion. He referred to the powerful statement by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) the other night of the extreme unfairness of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in introducing a measure of this kind without telling their Lordships the whole of it. When the 586 noble and learned Lord introduced it, he wrapped himself up in a dignified obscurity. He refused to give any explanation whatever, or any hope that in the course of that night's debate we would give them any assistance in guessing what his intention might be. The noble and learned Lord, when he introduced the Bill, told them that it had been founded upon a Report of the Commissioners on Criminal Law, and that it had been prepared upon their recommendation. Now, it was remarkable that the learned Commissioners included in their recommendaation the absolute abolition of the existing Oath of Supremacy; that oath which their Lordships had taken—which every subject in this realm, except Roman Catholics, was bound to take. Those learned Commissioners, in their recommendation, and in the Bill which they drew up in compliance with the Commission from the Crown, part of which Bill was now brought before their Lordships, proposed the abolition of the oath declaring the Royal supremacy in spiritual matters. The oath they proposed absolutely extinguished all assertion of any spiritual supremacy of the Crown. He could scarcely believe it until he looked to their Bill, and found that they proposed a new oath in lieu of the existing one, and it was as follows:—"I, A., B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will maintain the succession of the Crown as established by Act of Parliament, intituled "An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,' and that I do not believe,"—not, as by the existing oath, "that the Pope, or any foreign prince, prelate, State, or potentate, has or ought to have any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction,"—for these were the words of the existing oath, as their Lordships well knew, for they had repeatedly sworn it in that House, and they believed that it was essential to the constitution of this land, and to the supremacy of the Sovereign, that they should so swear; but, it was now to be—"has or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction or power within this realm." That, he said, was a most enormous innovation. He did not believe that the noble and learned Lord would adopt that innovation. He did not believe that in the face of their Lordships, if the noble and learned Lord could wish it, he would dare to propose it. He was still confident that they would hear 587 from the noble and learned Lord, although he had been silent hitherto, a positive declaration of his intention not, in the part of the measure he had yet withheld from their Lordships, to substitute that monstrous proposition of those learned persons. Permit him to say that the existing oath was one of the most stringent character. It was an oath affirming the sole independent monarchy of the Sovereign of England. If they abandoned that oath, they abandoned their Constitution; and how had their forefathers enforced that oath? By making it an absolute condition that all men who bore any part in the Legislature of this country should swear not only that the Pope, or any foreign prince, prelate, or potentate had not any such jurisdiction, but that they ought not to have any. They took the security that no man should enter within the walls of that or the other House of Parliament, until he was made to give the country the security of knowing that he was convinced in his conscience—and he called God to witness to the sincerity of his conviction—that the Pope ought not to have any jurisdiction in this country. Then he said it was impossible for their Lordships to concur in anything like a plan for striking out the existing oath from the Statute-book. He repeated his hope that the noble and learned Lord would give them some relief upon this subject, which he should think more necessary but for the confidence he had in the constitutional attachment of the noble and learned Lord to the monarchy. There was an absolute necessity that they should know the whole case; and he was confident that he should have the support of the noble and learned Lord opposite in the Motion which he should now make—"that they should go into Committee on this Bill that day three months." They ought to weigh well what they were doing, and to consider fully the importance of the measure before them. For himself, he could not see that it was consistent with the oath he had taken, that the Pope ought not to have any jurisdiction, pre-eminence, or authority within this realm, to give him by law any such authority. He had the opinion of the noble and learned Lord delivered on a former occasion as to the danger to arise from this relaxation; and he had an equally high authority in the law and practice of every State in Europe, including every Catholic State. Those countries knew by experience how formidable indeed was the power of the Pope unless it were strictly restrained. 588 He did not ask for a new law; but he insisted on retaining—for they had it already—a law which would give them security—a law, too, which was not inconsistent with the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. He could show this by reminding their Lordships, and referring to the Report of 1816, of the rule in France; there it was one of the first maxims that the Pope had no authority to issue any commands, ordinances, or injunctions, general or special, in any country subject to His Most Christian Majesty. It was true that our Christian Sovereign was looked upon by the Pope as a heretic. He would not retort the term, for he would never unnecessarily use a term which would shock the feelings of any of their Lordships; but if the King of France, who professed the Roman Catholic faith, declared that nothing should be done without his consent within his dominions by the Pope, he did not see why, in other countries, the Pope should not be prevented from having the power of sending in his mandates. He was aware that many communications might be necessary to give the privilege of free communion with the See of Rome. He knew not how those communications were carried on; but the law of the land was content to let it rest so, without any inquiry into the mischief, so long as it was not forced upon public attention by the promulgation of the Pope's law. He hoped there would never be a desire to look too closely into these small matters for the purpose of enforcing the law; but at the same time he claimed the right of appealing to the Constitution of the land, if any grievance were felt. That the Legislature should be so forgetful of the oath in conformity with which they were permitted to be a Legislature, he would not contemplate; and he hoped the issue would not be forced on by men whom he had hitherto regarded with great respect for their private character, and whom he had the honour to know in private, especially his noble and learned Friend, and for whom he entertained the most respectful attachment. He hoped that day would never come; but, he asked, why was this danger incurred? Was there any complaint, or even any actual grievance? No such thing. But, they were told that this was an ugly and disagreeable Statute, and that the Statute-book ought to be amended to meet the refined and delicate feeling of the present day; but he hoped their Lordships would adhere to the rugged enactments of their forefathers, 589 and would not fritter away the spirit of the Constitution. In the Catholic Directory for 1842, which was, he supposed, in the hands of every Roman Catholic who could read, the present Pope claimed a power in other countries, as well as in the Roman State, or some one put forth the claim for him. In 1841 it appeared that he sent forth an allocution, or an address, in his secret consistory, which was afterwards published, and he also published a jubilee, giving plenary indulgence to all who should concur in the views of the allocution. The Spanish Government had thought fit to lay their hands, as he hoped their Lordships or the other House would never do, on the possessions of the Church. That the Pope should be sorry for this, and that he should express his regret, was but natural; but he complained, and from complaint he went to threats, and he asserted a positive power, and declared that all the Spanish Government had done was null and void. He condemned all who had assisted in those acts, and all the Government had done, or attempted to do, against the Church, and declared that all their acts were null and void, both past and future. This was an interference, on the part of the Pope, inconsistent with the notion that he had no authority nor power in this country; and if their Lordships passed the present Bill in all its clauses the Pope's law would be put forward as a law to be observed in the dominions of Her Majesty. This he ventured to characterize as a frightful instance of the danger which threatened if this measure passed. But this was not all. There were other facts on record which proved the danger. It appeared that some laymen had maintained their right to certain ecclesiastical property, the disposition of which was claimed by the Bishop of Heliopolis. The laymen appealed to the civil magistrates, who decided in their favour. The Bishop appealed to the Pope, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) would read the Pope's letter. The right rev. Prelate read this letter, which solemnly declared, by the apostolical authority of the holy see, that heretical magistrates had violated and trampled under foot the liberties and spiritual power of the Church. They were declared guilty of the most manifest audacity, and warned to remember the censure and spiritual punishment which they had, ipso facto, incurred. This was a pretty strong assertion of Papal power. And where was it made? In Italy? No. In France? 590 No. In Prussia? No. In Russia? No. It was made in the dominions of Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdoms, viz., in Gibraltar. And when was it made? Why, since the noble and learned Lord had held the office of Lord Chancellor, and since Her Majesty's Government had been in power. He must be permitted to ask who were the parties who were thus denounced as having committed this injustice, as having dared to trample upon the sacred rights of the Church, and whose decree the Pope had thought fit to declare absolutely null and void? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knew; for the case had come by appeal before the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, which had decided in favour of the laymen. So that even against the decision of the ultimate court of appeal in this country, the Pope had dared to raise his voice and assert his power. The case thus assumed a most frightful appearance; for it showed that we should have the assertion of his spiritual supremacy made on all hands. There were other reasons than these why he should oppose the Bill; but for those he had mentioned he felt it his bounden duty to resist the proposition for going into Committee; and in order to enable their Lordships to affirm with him that it was not a Bill to be entertained, he should conclude with the Motion of which he had given notice. He would further say, it would not be enough to tell their Lordships that it was intended to give them something by way of security. If it was intended to give any real security, that real security ought to precede the surrender of their present laws. If they were such idiots and traitors to their country as to give up the security for the Protestant Constitution of this land upon a bare promise that they should afterwards hear of something else, they would deserve, as they would meet, the contempt of their countrymen and reproach of their own consciences.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his right rev. Friend began his address by assigning two reasons for the purpose of leading their Lordships to the conclusion that his noble and learned Friends and himself had erred in the opinions which they had given in answer to his questions. The first reason he had given, and which was the principal one, was that every person was bound to take the oath of supremacy upon that oath being tendered. With 591 regard to that reason, he (the Lord Chancellor) begged leave to state to his right rev. Friend that he was quite misinformed upon the subject, and that he had not taken those pains which were usual with him to make himself acquainted with the state of the statute law, as far as related to that question. Certainly, formerly, by various acts of Parliament, upon the oath of supremacy being tendered in the manner described by those Acts, parties to whom it was tendered were bound to take it under severe penalties. But his right rev. Friend ought to have known that so far back as 1791 an Act of Parliament was passed for the relief of Roman Catholics, in which there was a distinct clause annulling the law in this respect, which had before provided that any party should be bound to take the oath upon its being tendered. That was considered a harsh proceeding, and the Legislature thought proper to repeal it.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Act was the 31st Geo. III., cap. 32. The precise section the right rev. Prelate could hardly call upon him to mention by memory without having given him notice; but before the close of the debate he would undertake to point out to him the particular clause to which he was referring. So much, then, for that which his right rev. Friend described as the strongest part of his argument for the purpose of leading their Lordships to the conclusion that himself and his noble and learned Friends were mistaken in their opinions. Then the other part of his right rev. Friend's argument arose out of a certain clause in the Statute of Elizabeth. But when the right rev. Prelate argued upon this clause, he forgot the legislation since the passing of that Act, and that in the construction of any Act of Parliament you must take into consideration everything that had been passed since. Now, it was quite impossible for a moment to contend, after the various Acts that had been passed with reference to the Roman Catholic religion, after the facilities given for the performance of the duties of that religion, and, above all, that material alteration in the oath of supremacy in favour of the Roman Catholics, and in the permission of their principles — it was quite impossible, he said, for any person to maintain that a Roman Catholic moderately and temperately maintaining the supremacy of the Pope in 592 ecclesiastical matters, could be considered as offending against the laws of this country. So much with regard to that part of the case, and the charge made against himself and his noble and learned Friends as to the opinions they had expressed upon a former occasion. He really must say that, if the right rev. Prelate questioned the accuracy of those opinions, he ought to have insisted upon the attendance of the learned Judges before their Lordships, to deliver their views of the question at issue. And he must repeat what he had before said, that he thought his right rev. Friend had not acted very fairly in not giving them notice of his intention to controvert those opinions, in order that they might have had the great advantage of the attendance of the Chief Justice of England on this occasion, who, when the question was formerly before the House, had expressed his views with so much force and precision in support of the views which he (the Lord Chancellor) had taken the liberty of stating to their Lordships. His right rev. Friend had adverted to the Report of the Commissioners, and said it was the most extraordinary step ever taken to call upon Commissioners to prepare a Bill to be laid upon the Table of Parliament. His right rev. Friend entirely misapprehended the subject, the reference to the Commissioners. They were requested to prepare a Bill for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government: the Commissioners, in pursuance of their directions, prepared a Bill; that Bill was laid upon the Table of their Lordships' House, not by the Commissioners, or by any persons acting under their advice or direction—it was submitted in confidence to Her Majesty's Government. What was the intention when authority was given to the Commissioners to prepare a Bill? It was that, when the Bill was prepared, it should be submitted to Her Majesty's Government, who might exercise their judgment and consideration upon it; and if they thought right to adopt it in extenso, that it might be introduced into their Lordships' House. When they came to consider the subject, they did not think proper to propose the Bill in its then shape; in the first instance they adopted a part only, and the result was the measure now before the House. He (the Lord Chancellor) was responsible for the advice which he gave. He had said he had no doubt that as related to a particular class it was a wise measure, and he thought it should be adopted by Parliament. But then his 593 right rev. Friend said, "There is something behind this Bill, you are going to do something behind this Bill, you are going to do something further, you have involved yourselves in obscurity, you will not give satisfactory answers to anything that is said upon the subject, you are going to take away our constitutional defences." He (the Lord Chancellor) had over and over again said that until this Bill passed he would not touch the subject of oaths. He had not wrapped himself in obscurity upon this subject. He thought it far better in the first instance that their Lordships should consider this Bill as it stood upon its merits, in order that it might be first passed. If the oaths remained as they now were, he conceived this measure ought to pass; he did not conceive an alteration in them would affect the passing of this measure, or render it less advisable that it should pass. But what would their Lordships think of the charge of obscurity made by the right rev. Prelate, when he stated that he had himself told the right rev. Prelate, no further back than the last time their Lordships assembled, that he had no intention to propose an alteration in any of the oaths? He told the right rev. Prelate he did not intend to alter the oath of supremacy, that he did not intend to alter the oath of allegiance. The only point upon which any doubt might remain was the oath of abjuration; but an alteration would have been perfectly harmless, because it would only have arisen from the circumstance that as there was no descendant of the body of James the Second in existence, there was a part of that oath altogether superfluous. Was there any obscurity in this? Had he involved himself in those clouds to which the right rev. Prelate so eloquently referred? Nothing, he thought, could be more distinct than the statement he had made. Having proceeded thus far, he might say that no person more admired than he did the eloquent and feeling manner in which his right rev. Friend always addressed the House upon subjects of this nature; and he concurred in the opinions which the right rev. Prelate had maintained with regard to papal usurpation, and the insolent assumption of authority in every country. He had so expressed himself in very strong terms on a former occasion—so strong, indeed, as to call down the indignation of a noble Lord sitting at that side of the House. He had not, however, expressed himself stronger than the occasion warranted; and he subscribed entirely to the opinions of 594 his right rev. Friend. He could not certainly hope to rival him in eloquence; otherwise, if he could ascend to the same height, he might have followed him in the same train of observation—provided the occasion called for it. But as he could not hope to rival his right rev. Friend in eloquence, he would refer to the only point now before the House. Their Lordships had acceded to the second reading of a Bill which repealed thirty Acts or parts of Acts. When he opened the Bill to their Lordships, he stated that the case was of such a nature that it was impossible any man of common understanding, or common feeling, could doubt the propriety of repealing a great number of those Acts. So much was this felt that the right rev. Prelate, in that night's debate, observing upon the observations which he (the Lord Chancellor) had made, said he had thrown away his efforts, and not directed attention to the strong points of the case, but had lavished a great deal of power upon the part of the case which did not admit of doubt or dispute. He had therefore the admission of the right rev. Prelate himself that many of the Acts contained in the Bill ought to be repealed, if they had regard to the principles upon which right legislation ought to be conducted. It was unnecessary for him to recall attention to the particular instances to which he then referred; but he would mention two. If any person professing the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland maintained the spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of the Pope, he was liable for the third offence to be tried for high treason. But although the Legislature of the United Kingdom had since sanctioned those opinions, the persons professing them, for doing that which their religion prescribed, were liable, for the first offence, to imprisonment for life, for the second to the great penalties of premunire, and for the third offence to trial for high treason. Was that a law which ought to remain upon the Statute Book? [The Bishop of EXETER: This law was repealed two years ago.] Before interrupting him, the right rev. Prelate should have been assured that he was quite correct in his assertion. As far as related to England, two of those severe penalties had been repealed two years ago; but so far as related to Ireland they were all in force. The Bill now upon their Lordships' Table repealed the Irish part of the Act, and it repealed all that remained of the English. He would give give only one more instance to show how 595 absolutely necessary it was that they should consent to the second reading of the Bill, and go into Committee, notwithstanding the eloquence of the right rev. Prelate. The law as it stood enacted, that if any person was reconciled to the See of Rome, or persuaded another to be reconciled, he was guilty of offence to which the penalties of premunire attached, imprisonment for life, forfeiture of all his property, and to be put out of the pale and protection of law. He gave these as two samples out of the thirty Acts and parts of Acts which it was the object of the present Bill to repeal. Having consented to the second reading of the Bill, whatever opinion their Lordships might entertain as to the clause respecting the supremacy, or respecting bulls from the see of Rome, even if they concurred in every word the right rev. Prelate had said, how was it possible they could refuse to go into Committee? Was it not throwing away so much eloquence on the part of the right rev. Prelate, to come down in the way he had for the purpose of showing up the power of the Pope and his insolent assumption of authority, to induce their Lordships to forget what was the real question before the House, and the narrow contracted question to which he had called attention? He (the Lord Chancellor) thought he had said enough to induce their Lordships, unanimously he believed—for perhaps his right rev. Friend would be a convert—to oppose the Motion.
The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'Swished to make a few remarks upon this question, as circumstances had prevented him from attending in his place upon the second reading. He was anxious to take that opportunity to address their Lordships, because he did think that this measure had not been met on the part of the right rev. Prelates sitting in that part of their Lordships' House in a manner that he, as one of them, would have anticipated or wished. He should say that he believed the impression had gone forth to the country that this measure, taken as a whole, had drawn forth indications of repugnance, of aversion, of distrust, and of alarm—or at all events, of anything but an indication of a favourable reception, or of the good wishes of the bench of Bishops. Now, he thought that this was a measure which ought to be received, more particularly in that part of the House, in a very different manner—that it was one which ought to draw forth expressions on the part of his right rev. Friends of satisfaction, of mutual 596 congratulation, and of thankfulness to Her Majesty's Government for having brought it forward. And his reason for saying so was, that although it professed to relieve persons from disabilities to which they were liable in consequence of their religious opinions, he held that it was not more a relief to those persons than it was a relief to the Church of England. It was a relief to one party, indeed, from unjust and heavy disabilities; but it was a relief to the other from the very heavy load of obloquy, of odium, and of shame, to which the continuance of these laws subjected them. And so strongly did he feel this to be the case, that if his right rev. Friend at the Table (the Bishop of Exeter) had himself been the person to introduce the measure, however they might be surprised at it, there would, he was sure, be few men in the country found to say that he had acted in a manner at all inconsistent with his station as a Prelate of the English Church in doing so. With regard to this measure, he believed that no one would say that the repeal of these enactments generally was not in some degree desirable. He was free to admit that there was a great difference between the enactments generally that were proposed to be repealed, and those two particular Statutes to which the questions of his right rev. Friend at the Table had proposed to the Judges had reference. As to the great mass of the enactments, he considered that they were positively unjust and iniquitous; that they never ought to have been part of the law of the land; that there never were historical circumstances which would justify such cruel and wanton violation of the rights and liberties of the subject. He would not say that the circumstances and the times in which those enactments were passed did not afford some excuse for them; but he would say that in themselves they were such enactments as needed an excuse; and that, taking all into account, it was for their Lordships now to deal leniently with the prejudices and principles involved in them, but, at the same time, not to support them as applicable in any way to our own day. But as to the two particular enactments referred to by the right rev. Prelate, they stood on very different grounds. He admitted that there might have been reasons in former times to justify the prohibition under severe restrictions of the introduction of papal bulls. He would admit that if the Government of the day deemed such a measure necessary 597 for its security and safety, they were justified in introducing it; and he was prepared to make even a still larger concession, and to say that there would be nothing inconsistent with the broad principles of freedom if the Government of this day thought proper to exercise a similar control over the importation of these papal bulls as was enforced by other European Governments. But when he had said this he had gone as far as he could go. He could not sympathize in the slightest degree with the view taken by his right rev. Friend at the Table on this important question. His right rev. Friend looked on these penal clauses as bulwarks of the Constitution. He (the Bishop of St. David's) looked upon them in no such light. He very much questioned whether, even at the time they were enacted, they were so necessary or so expedient as the right rev. Prelate supposed them to be; and he believed that if they never had been enacted, the people of England would, notwithstanding, be at this hour enjoying all their liberties to the same extent as they now possessed them. But however that might be, he would say this, that the circumstances under which these Acts had been adopted had passed away, and that if a necessity for them existed at all, that necessity did not exist now. And here he might be permitted to ask what were the force and efficacy of what they called papal bulls? Was that force and efficacy in the piece of lead which was attached to the document on which the bull was written? Was it in the silken or hempen string by which the seal was attached? Was it in the contents of the document itself, or, to drop all those idle suppositions, was it even in the mind and intention of the Pope who made and published it? Now, he was then coming to a point in which he supposed he had the misfortune to disagree entirely from his right rev. Friend, for the right rev. Prelate seemed to think—and indeed it had been assumed in argument not only by him but by many others—and he was afraid that it was a very prevalent idea out of doors—that they were to estimate the danger that threatened them from these papal bulls by the opinion which the Pope himself entertained of his own power and authority. He would say that there could not be a more unfounded notion than that idea, and it appeared to him that all the examples which the right rev. Prelate had brought forward in support of his argument had most lamentably fallen 598 short of the mark. He had been actually surprised at some of the references which the right rev. Prelate had made to transactions in modern history, with a view to prove his proposition. He believed the right rev. Prelate had referred more than once to the transaction which had taken place in the beginning of the reign of Napoleon, and to the authority which Pope Pius VII. exercised when he changed the state of the whole Gallican Church, deposing an immense number of bishops, and transferring their allegiance from their legitimate prince to the usurper, Napoleon Bonaparte. Now he was utterly astonished that such a fact as this should be recalled to their Lordships' recollection for such a purpose; for if there were any proof in modern history stronger than another of the low state of degradation to which the papal power had fallen in modern times, he would refer to this as the instance. Why, was there anything in history more palpable or notorious than the extreme reluctance and terror—he might say, than the horror—with which that poor old man (of whom he wished to speak with the greatest veneration), Pope Pius VII., had consented to yield to the imperious demands of Napoleon, and lent his sanction to the proceedings then contemplated in France? Or was there any Roman Catholic who did not conceive that the authority of the Pope had never been more degraded than when he was forced to quit his own capital and go to Paris to attend the ceremony, and to place the crown, not on the head—for he was not allowed to do that—but into the hands of the modern Charlemagne? Could they look to any part of Europe with an unprejudiced eye, and not see the same facts continually and universally forced on their observation? And then with regard to the instance which the right rev. Prelate had mentioned that night of the allocution of the Pope with reference to Spanish affairs, he would like to know what effect had that allocution produced in Spain? Or, were they to take any instance that could be stated of the most extravagant assertion of papal authority, he would like to know in what case it had produced any effect on the country to which it related, when it happened to be against the wishes and inclination of the people? He had asked in what the force or efficacy of these papal bulls then really consisted? It did not lie in the parchment or in the lead, or in the silk or hemp, nor, according to his view, in 599 the mind or the intention, or the views of the Pope who affirmed or issued it, but he believed that its force consisted in the minds and in the intentions of those to whom it was addressed; and therefore it was that he would say, as long as the Roman Catholic population of this country preserved that character which they had now maintained for centuries, in spite of the hardest trials to which any class of men had ever been subjected, he, for one, should feel no alarm, supposing, though the severest penalties were enacted against the importation of papal bulls, that still one of these formidable documents should by any sleight of hand be smuggled into this country, and be found some unlucky morning affixed to the gates of London or to the walls of Buckingham Palace—he should feel no more apprehension of danger for the liberties of the people under such circumstances, than if it remained still within the walls of the Vatican. It was then quite clear that their safety never depended on the mind of the Pope, but on the intelligence and loyalty of the Roman Catholic population of this country; and the more confidence they reposed in that population, the better grounds would they find for that confidence; while the more of suspicion and distrust they showed towards them, the more grounds would they give for entertaining that distrust and suspicion. He did not mean to insinuate that under any circumstances that class of persons would ever become unfaithful to their allegiance, or would abandon the course which they had hitherto invariably pursued; but he said that they never should be subjected to the necessity of making such triumphs of duty and loyalty; that their honourable feelings should never be so sported with and trampled upon. That was one point to which the right rev. Prelate had more particularly addressed himself; but there was another point which did not come entirely under the same head—the enactment referring to the extolling and setting forth of the papal supremacy. There, again, he had the misfortune to differ from his right rev. Friend, because he conceived that this enactment, even if not unreasonable and absurd, ought to be repealed; first, as being utterly useless, and, secondly, as being flagrantly unjust. He maintained that if this enactment were to be rigorously acted upon, it would be unjust, for it imposed restrictions on the Roman Catholics that would not be felt by any other persuasion; and he also thought 600 that no ground of public security or convenience existed which required such restrictions to be imposed. For that reason he thought it to be unjust; and he believed it was still more manifest that it was useless. Was it possible to restrain the language of men and the freedom of the people to this extent? Was it possible that if these opinions were entertained in other countries they would not also be alluded to and maintained by argument by particular individuals here? He observed the other day an extract in a French newspaper that he thought was a very sensible observation. It was in reference to something which was supposed to have occurred in their Lordships' House, and which was understood to have fallen from his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) complaining of the conduct of the Archbishop of Paris in directing prayers to be offered up for the conversion of England to the Roman Catholic religion. The observation was, that the complaint of the noble and learned Lord was unreasonable, because there was nothing to prevent the noble and learned Lord, or others in this country, retaliating, by offering up prayers there for the conversion of France. But what would become of their dignity and honour if it were supposed for a moment that the safety of their liberties and Constitution depended in such a miserable and precarious state, that they were in danger, because the Pope believed he possessed unbounded spiritual or even temporal power; that their liberties and Constitution were in danger, because the Pope might possibly find some individual to set forth and extol that power? And yet, that was the utmost that the advocates for the continuance of that Statute could go; because, if anything further were attempted, if any attack were to be made on the authority of the Queen, then it was not denied that the common law of the land was sufficient to ensure the punishment of the authors. Therefore, he thought on this point his right rev. Friend had greatly mistaken the real question at issue. For his own part, he heartily approved of every clause of this Bill; and he believed, if it had a fault, it was that it did not go far enough. He believed that still more might be done on the principle of this Bill, and done with safety, to give relief to persons who were now labouring under religious penalties and disabilities. He was not, however, called upon to enter further into that question at present, though he thought 601 it would not be right for him to discuss the question without some allusion to it. He was persuaded that the time would come, and that, too, before very long, when the subject would be brought under their Lordships' notice again; and, whenever that time did arrive, he hoped their Lordships' decision would be grounded on an impartial view of the real grounds of the case, and that they would not be influenced by the force of names, by popular outcry, or by rhetorical declamation; that they would look to the people accused, and to the character of the accusers, and that they would see whether these accusers were not persons who, so far from possessing any legitimate authority—so far from deserving a share of influence and character, were not, on the contrary, persons who had proved themselves capable of conduct much worse than that which they imputed to their opponents—that they were literary demagogues who had been pandering to the worst passions of the multitude—prostituting their talents and, what was worse, their stations as teachers, to the vilest ends—that they had been degrading the most sacred names of humanity, of philanthropy, and of freedom, and then put themselves forward in the foremost ranks to point public indignation towards men from whose religious sentiments they differed.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, he would not trespass on their Lordships' time, were it not for some words that had fallen from his right rev. Friend behind him, who had just sat down, of which he felt bound to complain. His right rev. Friend had stated, that the just and liberal measure which was now before them, had been received coldly, reluctantly, and unworthily by his right rev. Friends around him. On their behalf, as well as on his own, he begged entirely to reject that imputation. He could not suffer the right rev. Prelate alone to claim—be it the merit or be it the shame—of welcoming heartily and gladly the measure of the noble and learned Lord, which he thought tended to relieve the Statute-book from injurious and insulting penalties which he and they regarded as a disgrace to it. But in stating this as his opinion—and he rejoiced to hear it assented to by his right rev. Friends around him—while he claimed for themselves this amount of liberality, he wished to go on, and say that there were other parts of it to which he objected, and which he thought none of the arguments of his right rev. Friend had succeeded in reaching. Therefore, while 602 he rejoiced that they should go into Committee on the Bill—while he gave the measure generally no cold assent, but rejoiced heartily in the passing of the just and salutary parts of it, he should confess that he felt staggered when he came to some of the details. He felt on coming to the details of the measure, that there were still one or two objections which he would wish his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and other noble and learned Lords present, would endeavour to remove. The second matter of which he complained in the speech of his right rev. Friend would bring him at once to those objections. The right rev. Prelate had stated, that he not only rejoiced heartily in the removal of these disabilities, but that he thought it was the special duty of the right rev. Prelates to rejoice at the passing of the measure, because it was setting the Church of England free from that which had been its great opprobrium—the continuance of these disabilities. That argument took it for granted that these enactments were the work of the Church of England. He denied that proposition entirely. On going back to that Statute of Elizabeth, when the supremacy of the Crown was re-established, they would find that every bishop at the time sitting in their Lordships' House had divided against it, because they had been of course attached to Roman obedience. The measures which they now proposed to repeal, were not, in point of fact, enacted for the Church of England, but for the State of England—a most important distinction. He rejoiced, he repeated, as a Member of the Church of England and as an Englishman, to see these insulting enactments repealed; but he would say, that the Prelates of the Church of England had no more to do with it than any of their Lordships. The Act was a civil measure. And here, he should say, that it was a strange thing, that in the Report of the Commissioners they commenced with the words "in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when the supremacy of the Crown was first enacted." Why, if these Commissioners had looked into the matter, they would have found that from the very earliest time the ancient realm of England denounced and denied the right of intermeddling in the affairs of this country on the part of any foreign State whatsoever. That was an assertion of nationality. They had been told the other night by every noble and learned Lord in the House, and with singular strength by 603 his noble and learned Friend opposite, that it was in consequence of the bull deposing Queen Elizabeth having been insultingly posted up in this city, that this Act had been passed. They were, to be sure, told that there was abundant inherent vigour in the common law of England to deal with such manifest acts of treason as that; but then he would ask, if that were so, for what reason was this Act passed? It was this. The Pope had put forth his claim to these unjust powers; the English people became indignant; and their greatest statesmen, including Bacon and others, considered that it might be expedient to put forward a declaration of the nationality of this land. They could not do so by bulls, and they adopted the only means at their disposal—they passed Statutes declaring the nationality of the country. These were, therefore, not religious, but civil and national enactments; they were counter-statements of nationality in opposition to the anti-national pretensions of the Pope. But what state were they to be in if this enactment was now to be repealed? The Bill of Her Majesty's Government purported to do away with all declarations of nationality. It proposed distinctly to allow thenceforth, not merely to connive at the ecclesiastical power of the Bishop of Rome within this realm of England. It proposed to recognise the power of introducing the Pope's bulls, and to legalize the authority of the Pope in this country. Was he not, therefore, right in saying that the nationality of England, as put forth in the declaration that no foreign Power, State, or potentate, had any authority within these realms, was withdrawn? In fact, the Commissioners felt such to be the case, for they proposed a new oath of allegiance to be taken by Roman Catholics, leaving out the declaration that the Bishop of Rome neither had nor ought to have any civil or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, power, or authority in this realm. But how would this Bill leave the question? When any of their Lordships, or any other person, took the oath of supremacy in future, they would still have to swear that the Pope of Rome had not, and ought not to have, any jurisdiction, civil or religious, within this realm. The noble and learned Lord, therefore, instead of giving them a half measure, should have provided for this grievance, and not have left every one who took this oath in future to swear what he knew to be a falsehood. When every rational man took the oath, he felt it to mean that the Pope had 604 no such power by any law or constitution of this realm; and not that no individuals in the country admitted the existence of such a power. This, however, would be the case no longer, for by this Bill the authority of the Pope in spiritual matters would be distinctly allowed by law. If the Constitution of England admitted this power of thus changing the terms of an oath, when it did not apply to a particular state of things, why did not the noble and learned Lord bring forward a measure with the oath as proposed by the Commissioners, in order that, whilst he was legalizing (as he was doing) the spiritual power of the Bishop of Rome in this country, he should not, as he seemed to be doing, spread a net to entangle conscientious men? There would be multitudes of people who would say, that it was impossible for them to take the old oath according to the old Constitution. If it were necessary to admit by law, instead of conniving at, the authority of the Pope, he (the Bishop of Oxford) was sure that the noble and learned Lord would be able to frame an enactment which would exclude the evil and preserve the good, in the shape of a solemn national protest against the authority being injuriously exercised. His right rev. Friend had spoken as if they were afraid of the papal authority spreading again over this country. Believing, as he did, that the whole of that power had been constructed on a fallacy and on falsehood; and reading history as he had done, he could not believe that the old wells of error were going to rise and overflow them; and he had therefore no such fears. His fears were from a very different quarter. He feared that this might be bringing in latitudinarianism and carelessness as to all belief—that they were but opening the door to incredible dangers when they believed that they were merely admitting Romish superstition.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had in his statement so unanswerably replied to the speech of his right rev. Friend at the Table (the Bishop of Exeter), who had taken the objections to the law points on a former occasion, that he should only waste their Lordships' time, were he at this period of the debate to add anything to his noble and learned Friend's arguments. No doubt the supremacy of the Pope might be mooted in the present state of the law, provided it was done respectfully to the Queen's supremacy, and respectfully to the Constitution of these realms as by law established. 605 But there had been a material change with respect to the law regarding the oath of supremacy since the laws affected by this Bill were passed. Somewhere about fifty years ago the law respecting the compulsory taking the oath of supremacy, by all the Queen's subjects, was repealed as regarded its being compulsory to take it; and in 1829 the oath itself was materially altered, and the Roman Catholic people of the Empire were allowed to substitute the oath as it now stood: the words "spiritual and ecclesiastical" remained in the oath to be taken by persons not Roman Catholics; whereas Roman Catholics obtained the same benefits which formerly could be had by taking the whole oath, upon taking the oath with the words "spiritual and ecclesiastical" omitted. If the words denying the spiritual and ecclesiastical supremacy of the Pope had been, left in, the Roman Catholics could not have taken the oath. His noble and learned Friend had well argued that it was not illegal, much less penal, for any one temporarily and inoffensively, and without malicious intent or seditious purpose, to moot the subject as to the spiritual and ecclesiastical power of the Bishop of Rome within this realm. A great difficulty, however, had been raised by his right rev. Friend who had last addressed their Lordships. He felt that there were weighty considerations in dealing with matters of conscience; but these points were not dealt with in the present measure of his noble Friend, for this Bill only treated of the penal statutes and enactments now existing. He felt the full force of the statement of his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford); but he must be permitted to say a few words as to the dangers apprehended by that right rev. Prelate, as well as by his right rev. Friend at the Table (the Bishop of Exeter). The arguments of both centered in the consequences which might follow the repeal of these statutes as regarded the oath of supremacy. There was nothing in this Bill which prohibited them from protesting against the acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy. The laws proposed to be removed from the Statute-book, and more especially the 1st and 15th of Elizabeth, would not affect the question of supremacy; for the matter stood broadly on the face of the Statute, in the shape of the declaration of the King, Lords, and Commons, as to the ancient supremacy of the Crown; it did not profess to want anything new, and the Commissioners 606 never meant to say these Acts enacted something now which was not law before. It was a gross error to suppose that this enactment of the 1st of Elizabeth was a declaration of supremacy made for the first time.
The BISHOP of OXFORDobserved, that he had said that the supremacy had then been recently re-established.
The LORD CHANCELLORThe words of the title of the enactment were restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the estate ecclesiastical and spiritual.
LORD BROUGHAMOf course it meant the restoration and the re-establishment of the supremacy of the Crown after a Popish reign. In this respect only it was an establishment of the supremacy. The common law of the land had re-established it, and the Statute of Elizabeth merely declared its restoration. The enactment in the Statute-book also declared that the Pope's supremacy within these realms was a nullity. The enactment was a declaration of King, Lords, and Commons, that the supremacy of the Crown in civil and ecclesiastical matters vested in the Crown by the common law of the land. It inferred that the Pope's alleged supremacy was a fiction, a dream, a fraud, an imposition, and that the common law had always declared that the Monarch of this realm, in all causes or matters, civil or ecclesiastical, was supreme. That was sufficient for him, without continuing these penalties on the Statute-book. His right rev. Friend had said that these penalties were never enforced; but where such penalties were only dormant, they were often warmed into life with some sinister view, and for some malicious and bad purpose. His right rev. Friend at the Table seemed to think that somebody or other meant to taunt him for the line of argument which he had adopted on the present occasion. He could assure his right rev. Friend that he had no intention of doing anything of the kind. He knew full well if he attempted any such thing he should get the worst of it. With respect to the continuation of the oath of supremacy, the words left out could only affect Catholics, for they alone believed in the supremacy of the Pope. If he had any apprehensions on this subject, which he had not, he should feel satisfied when he considered that the allies only of the Pope would be allowed to leave out these words; but a good Protestant, or a good Presbyterian, like his noble 607 and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), for aught that he knew to the contrary, would still have to take this oath, with the declaration that the Pope had not now any right to have any spiritual or ecclesiastical supremacy within this realm. They should recollect, however, there were some hundreds of thousands of the subjects of the Queen in this country, and in Ireland such a large number as to make it some millions of persons, who looked to his Holiness at Rome as their spiritual father and lawful ecclesiastical superior; but that was not all, for it was an article of belief with them, that they must, in all matters ecclesiastical, implicitly submit to the authority of their spiritual father. An edict from that quarter might be addressed to this realm, or to a particular portion of the Queen's subjects who believed in the Pope's supremacy; and such edict, or proclamation, or bull, or rescript, or by whatever other name they might call it, they were bound to accept, and were bound in spirit and in conscience, as they hoped for salvation, and for the absolution of their sins, to believe that although they might hope to obtain absolution of other sins, yet if they denied in word or action, or even in thought, the spiritual authority of their spiritual father, they never could hope to receive absolution from their confessor. For his own part, he denied this popecraft, and, in point of fact, it had no influence with him. He did not say that the law enforced on all the acknowledgment of the Queen's supremacy in matters spiritual; but it did not prevent those who believed in it from assisting in it, and acting upon it. In his mind it would be better that the words should be struck out of the Protestant oath, as well as out of that taken by the Catholics. He would, however, leave this matter to the consideration of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, who was a much better judge of the subject than he was. As for the importation of Popish bulls or rescripts, he did not agree in the propriety of continuing the extravagant enactments on this subject, which this Bill would very properly repeal; but still he thought that danger might accrue from their importation if there was not some check. He thought that it was a great anomaly—a grievous anomaly—to allow the orders and commands of a foreign potentate, addressed to most obedient slaves, to be received by them without any let or hindrance. This was not the case with other countries. With Austria this was 608 not the case, and with that power there was no concordat. With France this was not the case with a concordat, with Naples without a concordat, and with Portugal, which was a most Catholic country, without a concordat. In all these countries they refused to receive or to allow the publication of bulls from Rome, without the sanction of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. They were not regarded as the worse Catholics for this; they were not the worse viewed at Rome, for all those States received the nuncios of the Pope. He did not wish that this should be done by such interference; but he thought that such bulls should have the sanction of the civil authorities before they could be promulgated or considered valid. He, perhaps, did not apprehend that there was any great practical danger on this point; but still it was a striking anomaly. He (Lord Brougham) would, before he sat down, make one remark upon the reply of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of St. David's), to the observations which, on a former occasion, he (Lord Brougham) had made relative to a prayer offered up in Paris by the Archbishop of Paris for the conversion from their heresies of the English people. He had said that the offering up such a prayer was, to say the least, indecorous. The right rev. Prelate did not consider it so; he suggested that they in England might retaliate; but though this would indeed show a most gratifying mutual understanding between the two countries, it would be merely praying against one another—a very useless proceeding; and it was not at all improbable that precation might eventually assume the form of imprecation. They actually prayed in England, it was true, on one day in the year (on Good Friday), for the conversion of heretics; but they prayed only for heretics generally; while, in France, they had prayed during thirteen days for the conversion of the people of England, by name, from their detestable heresies to the Popery of the people of France, Suppose that every year specific forms of prayer were offered up in this country for the conversion of the people of France, he was satisfied that it would not afford any satisfaction in that country. It might be all very well to talk of heresy and such other matters; but the fact was, that nothing was so impolitic as the truth being spoken in plain terms at all times. If we had said something like the same things of them that they said of us, they would have a perfect right to complain 609 of us, as he complained of the Archbishop of Paris. He knew, however, that the thing had arisen from an error and oversight on the part of the French Government; and he had no doubt that it would not occur again. Before he sat down, he might observe that he had framed a clause which he should bring up on receiving the Report, by which it was enacted that no bull or rescript should be received or published in this country, without having been previously communicated to the civil authorities, and that any infraction of this should involve the party in a penalty of 50l. This would act without taking away any of the penalty which was attached by common law to the proceeding in such circumstances as made it be recognized for a public offence.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that as his opinion had been much alluded to by the right rev. Prelate who first addressed the House, he felt called upon to say a few words. He had not the slightest hesitation in going into Committee on this Bill; but he must repeat what he said on a former night, that, in his humble opinion, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had acted very injudiciously in the manner in which he had conducted the reform of laws, the existence of which he had so much deprecated. When framed they were intended as a protection of the Protestant religion against Papal authority. Some involved the infliction of penalties, others imposed the taking of oaths. Both classes of enactments were intended for the same object, and these Acts of Parliament were all in one class. The existence of these Acts of Parliament, most of which had become obsolete, was pointed out to the attention of Parliament a few Sessions ago, and they were referred to the consideration of some of the most able men of the legal profession to draw up a Report on the subject. At the head of them was his learned Friend Sir Edward Ryan, formerly Chief Justice in India, than whom, for high honour, for great intelligence, and profound learning in the law, his superior was not to be found. He believed that these gentlemen got through their labours in a most able and satisfactory manner. In December last they framed the model of an Act of Parliament on this subject, which they handed over to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and which contained both the new oaths proposed to be taken in lieu of the present oaths, and also the new penalties. From what he could judge of 610 the new penalties and new oaths, he should have wished that some measure should at once have been introduced respecting them. He was satisfied if this measure passed in its present form, it would be most imperfect; for if they allowed the oath of supremacy to remain as it now was, it would be a snare to tender consciences, and would prove most injurious to many persons. Though this was his opinion, and though he thought that the noble and learned Lord would have done well to have yielded to the Report of the Commissioners, yet he was bound to say that he approved of both parts of the Report, and cordially supported this Bill; yet he still hoped that the second Bill would be brought in before the present one was finally dispssed of. He was glad the Bill had proceeded so far, however, as it would do much to relieve the Statute-book from many Acts which were a reproach to the laws of the country; and although the Legislatures which passed them might have grounds of excuse for making such laws, yet they could have no excuse for allowing them to remain on the Statute-book.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that he did not intend to enter into a discussion at length on the merits of the measure, which as far as he understood the principle or details of it, should have his cordial support. He could not let it pass over its present stage in silence, and without alluding to the misapprehension of the right rev. Prelate who spoke last, which mistake appeared to be sanctioned by the high authority of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). As he understood the argument of the right rev Prelate, and of his noble and learned Friend, it was that we had adhered up to the present time to the oath of supremacy which had been taken by the Members of that House, and by a large portion of the Protestant people of this country; yet that after the passing of this measure it would be impossible for any man with a safe conscience to swear that the Pope had not and ought not to have any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this realm. With great deference to the right hon. Prelate, he would submit whether this Bill, should it become an Act of Parliament, would in the slightest degree affect the existing law. [The Bishop of OXFORD: No, no!] The right rev. Prelate said so in fact, for he stated that they were about to legalize the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope. He must say, with all respect, they were going to do no such thing; for after the passing of the Bill the jurisdiction of the Pope would remain 611 the same, and would not be more or less legalized than it was at the present moment. At present, as all their Lordships knew, a large body of their fellow subjects were, in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical, bound in conscience by the decrees of the See of Rome. If the interpretation put upon the oath was to be adopted, every one of their Lordships were as much guilty of perjury at present as after this Bill passed. This Bill did not legalize any matter; but it took away certain specific formalities for receiving communications, innocent in themselves, but deemed guilty because they came from the See of Rome. If there was anything seditious in them, or against the peace of the Crown, or against the civil rights of the subjects of the Crown, the fact of their being issued from Rome did not give them any more legal authority or impunity after the Bill passed than they had now. Nor by this Bill did they acknowledge any spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of Rome, which the oath now rejected, for the oath must mean that no foreign potentate had by right any spiritual or temporal authority within this realm. They did not question the spiritual authority of the Pope over any one in this country; but the oath of supremacy was a declaration by oath—and it would be after the passing this Bill as at present—that there was no law in this country, that there was no law now, nor ought there to be one, by which the subjects of this realm were bound to acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope in matters spiritual or ecclesiastical. The Roman Catholic subjects of this realm might resist the authority of the Pope; and if any Roman Catholic clergyman, by a bull, or rescript, attacked any Roman Catholic subject of the Crown, the law would step in, and would protect the right of any person, and would give damages against the priest making such attack. There were many instances which he could cite in which the law had stepped in and protected the rights of the people. Indeed, within the last few months a conviction of this kind took place in the county of Cavan. In this instance a priest had excommunicated from the altar a Catholic layman, who appealed, not to the Pope, but to the civil jurisdiction of the country, which gave to the layman damages against the priest. That was what was meant by saying that the Pope had not any right to have civil or spiritual jurisdiction, and this was not altered by the Bill. He did not see that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack 612 ought to be charged with unfairness because he had postponed his proposition for altering the law on this subject, while he introduced this measure for sweeping away obsolete penalties. If this was an alteration of the law, and he had kept back the difficult question as to the oath of supremacy for the purpose of obtaining an advantage by passing this Act which would make it necessary to change the oath of supremacy, there might be some ground for it. He was sure, however, that his noble and learned Friend would shrink from the imputation of dealing so unfairly, and no one would condemn such conduct more than himself. He certainly thought, if the right rev. Prelate were justified in his premises, he would have been justified in his conclusions; but believing he was in error, he (Lord Stanley) thought he would be forgiven for stating his reasons for dissenting from those premises, and not agreeing in those conclusions.
The LORD CHANCELLORobserved that the Act contained a full and copious declaration of the supremacy of the Crown; what alteration, then, was made in the law by the repealing the penalties?
§ The House then went into Committee, and agreed to the clauses of the Bill, with the exception of three opposed clauses, which were reserved for future consideration.
§ The House adjourned about a quarter past Nine o'clock.