Lords Sitting of 18 February 1848

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several noble Lords, from various places, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.—From Roothing, for the Adoption of Measures to Impose the Severest Penalties on all those Roman Catholic Priests who shall Denounce Persons from the Altar.—From Stirling, for Repeal of the Bank Charter Act (1844), and for Alteration of the Scotch Banking System.—From Kincardine, for Revision of the Laws regulating the Currency.—From Clerks, Masters and Matrons of various Workhouses, for a Superannuation Fund for Meritorious Officers who may become disabled.—From Glasgow, against the Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome Bill.—From Forres, for Alteration of Law respecting Prison Assessment (Scotland).—From William Ferdinand Wratislaw, of Rugby, complaining of an Overcharge of Postage on Foreign Letters.—By the Duke of Beaufort, from the City of Bristol, for the Removal of the Jewish Disabilities.—From Gloucester, for Sanitary Reform.—From Perth, for Revision of the Stamp Duties, and for Reduction of the Duty on Tea—From Paisley, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE COURT OF ROME BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEhav-
868
ing moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill,
EARL FITZWILLIAMrose, and begged to be permitted to make a few observations before their Lordships went into Committee on the measure before the House—a measure which he thought was called for by the present circumstances of Europe. A noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who was opposed to the measure, seemed to think that it was not of much importance whether this country entered into, or was capacitated to enter into, diplomatic relations with a small State; but he (Earl Fitzwilliam) conceived, that whether the State was a small one, or was not a small one, was not the question they had to decide. They must know from the history of this country, and from the history of Europe, that the pivot on which the great affairs of Europe had frequently turned, was to be found in countries of no great extent as to size. He thought it was a matter of the greatest possible consequence that they should be enabled to enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, and for this reason—a fearful struggle was going on in Europe between absolute government on the one hand, and free institutions on the other; and it was most essential, not alone for the happiness of Europe, but also as regarded the position which this country should occupy in Europe, that they should be enabled calmly and judiciously, with the moral weight which belonged to this country, to communicate with all the Powers of Europe. When they reflected on what was going on in Europe, it must be apparent that a great deal depended upon the conduct of the Sovereign of Rome; and, therefore, it appeared to him (Earl Fitzwilliam) to be a matter of the utmost consequence that they should be enabled to enter into diplomatic relations with that Court; not, however, for internal purposes, or for such purposes as had been insinuated by those noble Lords who were opposed to the Bill. It had been alleged that this Bill had been brought in as a concession to the Roman Catholics of Ireland; but he trusted it was not brought in as a concession either to the Roman Catholics of Ireland or the Roman Catholics of England; and he ventured to express this opinion, that if this Bill should pass, the very last subject on which the Government of the country should communicate with the Court of Rome was, that which had reference to the relations which it

869
should have with its own Roman Catholic Subjects. He felt it to be so desirable that a measure of this kind should pass, that he was ready last night to vote for the second reading of the Bill; he was now ready to vote for going into Committee; and if no Amendment were moved, he would be ready to vote for the third reading of it. Nevertheless, he could not but express the regret he felt at the Bill having been conceived and drawn in its present form. It recited in the preamble two enactments, fundamental laws of the country, declaring the circumstances under which the Crown might be forfeited by its possessor, but having no reference to the sending of an embassy to Rome; and then it was enacted that it shall be lawful to send an ambassador to Rome. Some noble Lords went the length of stating that the words "holding communion with Rome," meant sending an ambassador to Rome. He entirely disagreed with that construction. Did they call the sending an ambassador to Lisbon, or an ambassador to St. Petersburgh, "holding communion" with Portugal, or "holding communion" with Russia? "Holding communion with Rome" could not possibly be construed to mean any such thing. In the statute the words were applied in a purely theological sense—they clearly meant receiving the sacraments, and worshipping according to the forms of the Romish Church, and not the sending an ambassador to Rome. In their endeavour to affix a new meaning to the term, noble Lords deprived the term of its old meaning. In his opinion the Bill had been unfortunately drawn for the object it proposed to effect. Reference had been made to the case of Lord Castlemaine. Did noble Lords suppose that if any case of treason could have been made out against Lord Castlemaine, that Parliament would have stopped short of it? He agreed, generally, in the principle of the Bill, but at the proper period he should propose that their Lordships make such an alteration in the preamble as would more clearly define the object of the measure. He should propose that the preamble declare simply that doubts having existed on the subject, it was expedient and necessary that those doubts should be cleared up. Another Amendment appeared on the Paper of the House—he alluded to the Amendment to be proposed by the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington); and he must confess that, notwithstanding the high quarter from
870
which that Amendment came, he (Earl Fitzwilliam) did not consider it at all necessary. If any danger should arise it would not be from the Court of Rome.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he perfectly agreed with his noble Friend that there existed at the present moment nothing in the common law or the statute law of this realm to prevent Her Majesty establishing diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome. He had several times had occasion to express a similar opinion. The matter first came before him when he had the honour of holding the office of Attorney General; and then, and ever since, he had always maintained the conclusion that there was no law or statute to prevent the Sovereign of England from sending an accredited ambassador to the Court of Rome. But although that was the opinion of the humble individual then addressing their Lordships, it was by no means the general opinion; and certainly for 180 years no such relations had been maintained. Many high authorities, both in and out of their Lordships' House, thought very differently. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) had stated that the Bill then before their Lordships would virtually repeal the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. There was a general opinion—an opinion as erroneous as it was general—that if any Government ventured to send an ambassador to Rome, for purely political purposes, without first obtaining the consent of Parliament, the Members of that Government would bring upon themselves fearful consequences. Much of the argument of parties who took that view was built upon the assumption that sending an ambassador to Rome would be holding communion with the Holy See. He quite agreed with the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam), that it would be nothing of the kind. But as those different opinions were held, he thought, in the language of the preamble, that it would be "expedient and necessary" for Parliament to sanction this Bill. If doubts existed, those doubts could only be determined by the Legislature stating authoritatively what was the meaning of the Legislature in former days. Some persons say that the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement prohibit direct diplomatic communication with Rome. Others, like himself, say that they do not. The Bill merely says that they do not, and that the Queen may, at Her Royal pleasure, send an ambassador to Rome. He saw no objection to the form of the Bill; and when it had

871
received such consideration and amendment as might be deemed expedient by noble Lords, he trusted that it would also receive the assent of their Lordships' House.
House in Committee.
LORD STANLEYobserved, that the preamble of the Bill cited the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, and then the first enacting words were—
"That notwithstanding anything contained in the said recited Acts or either of them, or in any other Acts now in force, it shall and is hereby declared lawful, &c."
Now, although he thought Her Majesty's Government in reciting the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, and thus putting the case plainly before the public, had done no more than their duty, he must confess that, instead of clearing up all doubts on the subject, the Bill seemed still to leave some doubts on the subject. What could be the reason for reciting two Acts by name, and then inserting the words, "any other Act or Acts?" He was very much inclined to think it would be better to strike the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement out of the preamble, and, adopting the words of the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam), follow on with the enacting clause. It would then run thus:—
"Doubts having arisen as to the legality of establishing diplomatic relations with Rome, it is expedient that those doubts should be removed. Be it therefore enacted, that notwithstanding any Act or Acts now in force to the contrary, &c."
EARL FITZWILLIAMconcurred with the noble Lord that it would be better to strike out the preamble and substitute the words he (Earl Fitzwilliam) had suggested.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEhad not the least hesitation in saying that he quite agreed with the suggestions of the noble Earl on that side of the House, and the noble Lord opposite. He was of opinion that it would make the intention of the Act better understood. However little doubt he might have himself as to the legality of diplomatic relations with Rome, he saw the expediency of clearing up all doubts. Many friends, for whose judgment he felt a great respect, thought that the present law prohibited diplomatic relations with Rome. The Bill, as proposed to be amended, came much nearer to the expression of his own opinion than it did in its present shape, and if it met with the pleasure of their Lordships, he would move that the words suggested be substituted.
LORD STANLEYsaid, there could be no question as to the fact that doubts were entertained, and he quite agreed with the Members of Her Majesty's Government that the law should be properly defined for the future. The adoption of the Amendments would avoid any ambiguity.
The BISHOP of WINCHESTERsuggested that if any alterations were introduced, some words should be substituted for the term "Sovereign Pontiff," to which he had last night objected.
LORD REDESDALEdid not clearly see the necessity for the measure. The right of the Crown to appoint ambassadors was not under any Act of Parliament.
LORD CAMPBELL: The Act does not authorise the appointment of an ambassador. It only says that the prohibition contained in other Acts of Parliament shall have no effect.
The BISHOP of EXETER: The preamble states that it is expedient for Her Majesty to enter into diplomatic relations with Rome. There is not one word directing the appointment of an ambassador—a power which Her Majesty has, if not prohibited by special enactment.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: Might I suggest to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester), whether the words, "Sovereign Pontiff of Rome," would not meet his objection?
The BISHOP of WINCHESTER: The words suggested by the noble Lord the President of the Council, however desirous I may feel to accede to anything proceeding from his Lordship, will not meet the objection which I feel to the term "Sovereign Pontiff." I entirely agree with what fell from a noble Lord on the cross-benches last night, that the terms "His Most Christian Majesty," and "His Most Catholic Majesty," as applied to the Sovereigns of foreign countries, are strictly and purely expressions of courtesy; but it is not so with respect to the term "Sovereign Pontiff." That expression sounds, in my ear, something like the recognition of a claim which has been at different periods of our history prosecuted by the head of the Church of Rome—a claim of supremacy, which if not exercised over other States, or over other laymen, would at least be claimed over other ecclesiastical persons. I should be the last to suggest a substitute for the term which, even by implication, could be construed into anything offensive to the head of the Church of Rome. I do not ask you to use the term "Bishop of

873
Rome," although I find it adopted in other Acts of Parliament. I have great scruples, and I would make great sacrifices to meet the scruples of others from whom I have the misfortune to differ. I would not suggest the words "Bishop of Rome," or "Pope of Rome," but I would suggest the substitution for the term "Sovereign Pontiff," the words "Sovereign of the Roman States;" and I am the more induced to adopt that term because I find it used in the Amendment to be moved by the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington). The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving his Amendment.
The EARL of SHREWSBURY: Though I see no objection to the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, yet I am satisfied that he labours under a misconception of the real meaning of the term to which he objects—"Sovereign Pontiff." My Lords, this is a purely civil title, whilst the Latin spiritual appellation, Summits Pontifex should be translated "Supreme Pontiff." In the Italian, the distinction is still more remarkable. Il Sommo Pontefice is his ecclesiastical, Il Sovrano Pontefice his civil denomination. The right rev. Prelate knows as well as I do that the spiritual supremacy of the Pope depends upon his being Bishop of Rome.
The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'Scontended that the words "Sovereign Pontiff" did not imply any recognition of the spiritual power or authority of the Pope; and that some of the most sincere and gifted Protestants had used the term frequently in the simple meaning of the Pope as Sovereign of the Roman States. He had been attacked for using a similar assertion on the preceding evening; but he had since looked into the works of some of those historians who could not be suspected of leaning to Popery. Hume, who, if he could not properly be called a Protestant writer, could, at all events, never be charged with a leaning towards Popery, had used the words "Sovereign Pontiff" as his own phrase, when detailing the circumstances of the reception of Thomas a Beckett by Henry II.; and Dr. Robertson, in detailing the relative positions of the several States of Italy, applied to the Government of Rome the term "Holy See." So that it was quite evident that the use of those terms involved no recognition whatsoever on the part of Protestants of the spiritual power of the Roman Pontiff. He wished, therefore, that his right rev. Friend, as he trusted he might call him,
874
who was at all events his right rev. brother (the Bishop of Exeter), had spared himself the use of those uncharitable observations and reflections which must necessarily give pain to others, without being productive of any good. So much holy indignation was thrown away upon so trifling a subject, and it was not calculated to serve the cause of truth and true religion. As a friend, or simply as a brother, he begged him to refrain a little, and not to be so lavish of his precious balm, or at least to pour it on more mercifully.
The BISHOP of EXETERthanked his right rev. Friend for the manner in which he had addressed himself to the remarks which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had felt it his duty to make upon the speech of his right rev. Friend on the preceding evening. And he assured his right rev. Friend and their Lordships, that if he were convinced of the incorrectness of the observations he had made, his apology to his right rev. Friend would be as ample as his censures—for he admitted that they were censures upon his right rev. Friend—had been severe. But his opinion remained still as it had been on the preceding evening. And he still thought that the manner in which his right rev. Friend had spoken on the preceding evening, and the whole tone of his observations upon the subject, did call for the expression of feeling which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had used, and to which he had no hesitation whatever in giving utterance. And as to the proofs which his right rev. Friend had produced upon the present occasion in corroboration of his assertion that Protestant writers had used the term "Sovereign Pontiff," to what extent did they go? Why, merely that Protestant, or persons who chose to call themselves Protestant historians, had, when speaking of transactions which had taken place during times when the supremacy of the Pope was acknowledged, applied the term "Sovereign Pontiff" to him. Why, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would not have felt surprise if his right rev. Friend had produced examples of Protestant historians writing within the last ten years, who had used the term loosely. But the production merely of passages written by Hume and Robertson, of transactions that had taken place in the reigns of Henry II. and John, was a sort of proof for which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had really to thank him. The real question to be considered was, whether this Protestant House of Parliament, and

875
particularly they who were Prelates of the Protestant Church, should in a solemn act of legislation give to the Pope the title of "Sovereign Pontiff," thereby implying that he was their sovereign. Was the Pope, in short, to be considered their episcopus episcoporum? He begged to refer them to the five orders of episcopacy, as laid down by Gratian. They were—first, bishops; second, archbishops and metropolitans; third, primates; fourth, patriarchs; and fifth, the Pontifex Summus. If, therefore, they were to be obliged to apply the term to the Pope, would it not be an acknowledgment of him as the supreme head of their episcopacy? Were they to be obliged to use the expression for the first time in an Act of Parliament?
LORD COLCHESTERsuggested that it might so happen that the sovereignty of the Roman States might not always be vested in the Pope, The Sovereign of Rome and the Sovereign Pontiff might be different persons.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that the only sense in which the term "Sovereign Pontiff" had been introduced into the Bill was that of its being the ordinary appellation of the Sovereign of the Roman States. But if there could be any doubt upon the subject, Her Majesty's Government would be most anxious to remove it. It was not for a moment to be supposed that the term "Sovereign" would be understood in the sense of an acknowledgment of spiritual authority. No such meaning was or should be annexed to it; and if other words could be found to express the temporal meaning, the Government would have no objection. An Amendment had been proposed on the preceding day by the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), to which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had at once given his assent, in which the term "Sovereign of the Roman States" had been inserted instead of "Sovereign Pontiff." And he was ready to accept that term in the sense in which his noble Friend near him had said that it was generally accepted in Italy. He was willing to adopt the expression "Sovereign of the Roman States."
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, he had use the words "Sovereign of the Roman States" purposely, because he understood the Bill as being a Bill to regulate the political relations with that Court exclusively, and as not having any allusion whatever to matters of a religious or ecclesiastical nature. The only relation which
876
the Bill was to open was a political relation, and therefore it was that he had used the words "Sovereign of the Roman States," instead of "Sovereign Pontiff;" because, as it appeared to him, the term "Sovereign Pontiff" related to religion.
Clause as amended agreed to.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNthen rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. Notwithstanding the various arguments he had heard to prove that no danger could arise from the passing of the Bill in its present state, he still remained of the same opinion, for the maintenance of which he had been (probably very properly) rebuked by the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of St. David's), who had charged him with having formed it too hastily. He (the Earl of Eglintoun) was of opinion that diplomatic relations might be entered into with the Court of Rome. But he thought that they ought to guard that Bill with the most anxious care. They should bear in mind that the Pope exercised a very great spiritual influence over a large portion of their fellow-subjects; and if the Bill were to be allowed to leave the hands of the Committee in its present shape, he (the Earl of Eglintoun) would be obliged to record his vote against it on the third reading. But if their relations with the Court of Rome were confined strictly to secular affairs, he thought there would be no cause for fear. Much as he wished to see an ambassador in this country from Rome, he should conceive the advantage too dearly bought if he were to allow the Bill to pass in its present shape. He therefore moved, in page 2, line 26, after the the word "whatsoever," the following words—
"Not being in holy orders in the Church of Rome, nor a Jesuit or member of any other religious order, community, or society of the Church of Rome, bound by monastic or religious vows."
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwould state in a few words the grounds, and the only grounds, on which he felt himself compelled to oppose the Amendment. The noble Earl had stated, in the course of his speech, that he had heard none but trivial reasons assigned for opening this matter. Those trivial reasons were such as to induce successive Ministers and successive Governments to evade the law. He should have thought that the statement made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) would have been sufficient to convince the noble Earl that no trivial grounds, but a

877
most important State necessity and expediency, required the establishment of these relations.
The EARL of EGLINTOUN: I stated that the noble Marquess had given only trivial grounds.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEtrusted that the noble Lord would allow him to think they were important, and he should press their consideration, in the present state of affairs, with the growing necessity of diplomatic intercourse, and under the peculiar circumstances of that part of Europe in which it was desired to establish the intercourse, and expedient to have the most authentic information. He was desirous only that Her Majesty should be placed in this respect on the same footing with the other Protestant Sovereigns of Europe. The noble Lord, by his Amendment, desired that She should not be so placed; he desired to put a limitation on Her Majesty's prerogative which did not exist in any other Protestant country entertaining relations with the See of Rome. He would not go into the invidious argument of what might be the personal or the political qualifications of the person who might be selected for the purpose of carrying on these diplomatic relations. He was far from saying that there ought not to exist, as there did exist with respect to all diplomatic relations, and as there would exist in this country after this Bill was passed, a power not to receive—a power, if necessary, to reject—any person who might be distasteful, from character, position, or any other quality, to the Sovereign or people; but he apprehended that if they authorised the establishment of diplomatic relations at all, it was in the hands of the Government or Sovereign that this power ought to be placed. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying that it might be convenient in this case to exercise the power with more peculiar caution than in any other. He thought it would be the duty of the advisers of Her Majesty so to advise Her; but he could not understand, when it had been stated that the King of Prussia did not receive a diplomatic Minister from Rome, because he did not receive him, in virtue of the exercise of his own will and judgment as Governor, that Her Majesty should be placed under disability in that respect to which other Protestant Sovereigns were not subject. It was stated rather incorrectly by a noble Lord who spoke last night, that with respect to Prussia it had
878
been the subject of a Concordat, or a proposition for a Concordat. There was no pledge on the part of the Sovereign of Prussia that he would not receive any Minister, if he were an ecclesiastic, from Rome; but it was true, that owing to an understanding of the inconvenience which was thought to attach to particular parts of the Prussian dominions, no such Minister had arrived. It would be inexpedient to introduce a provision into the Bill to debar Her Majesty from accepting persons who might be best qualified, under all the circumstances, for the purpose. It was highly probable that a person in holy orders would be employed in a special mission by a country in which many of the most able men were entirely of the ecclesiastical order. Such a provision might have the effect of precluding the Court of Rome from sending a person of the most unobjectionable character, because he belonged to an excepted class; while, under the noble Lord's clause, there would be no security against a layman who might be of the most artful character. He only wished this Bill to provide for all contingencies. He hoped their Lordships would not admit this restriction, which must necessarily give rise to a jealousy on the part of the Sovereign with whom we were about to enter into amicable relations.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, I mean to give my cordial assent to the proposition which has been made by the noble Earl. Although I think that many advantages may attend this Bill, I foresee that it must be attended also with as great an amount of inconvenience, and I think that the proposition of the noble Earl tends to remove one of the causes of difficulty. I must declare that I deprecate the residence of a Papal Nuncio in this country. My Lords, this is not from any anti-Catholic feeling on my part, but the contrary; all my life I have contributed humbly my mite to relieve the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty from their disabilities, and restore to them their privileges of British subjects; but it entirely proceeds from my conviction of the great inconveniences which would result from the unrestricted presence of such an agent. It has been said that it would always be in the power of Her Majesty to refuse to receive any Ambassador or any Minister whom it might be in contemplation to send. I know that is the case. I have had some experience of the duty; and I can assure your Lordships a very disagree-

879
able and painful duty it is to exercise. The Pope himself certainly knows that such may be the case; for it is very recently that he himself has refused to receive a Minister from the Court of Belgium, for a singular reason, coming from the Court which he did, viz., because the gentleman, who was a highly respectable person, and who, I believe, has been a Minister in his own country, was somewhat too liberal. Let us consider what the character of the Nuncio really is. In the first place, the Nuncio must be an ecclesiastic. I believe that, in the whole history of Rome, there is no instance of a Nuncio who is not a Prelate and Archbishop; and being such, in this country, he is invested with full spiritual authority over the whole Roman Catholic Church in the country to which he is sent. It is, in fact, transferring the Vatican to London, so far as the spiritual affairs of Roman Catholics are concerned in this country. Now I had rather see the authority, if it must exist, remain at home, than be transferred here. The jurisdiction of a Nuncio is in fact supreme over the spiritual affairs of the Roman Catholics in the country to which he is despatched: it approaches nearly to that of an alter ego, and spares the necessity of a reference to Rome in all those cases in which such reference otherwise takes place. The noble Marquess has referred to the case of the King of Prussia; but there is no instance of the Roman See having ever sent a Minister to any Protestant country. As I apprehend, the case of Prussia is this:—From the gratitude that was felt towards the King of Prussia, a proposal was made that the King should send a Minister to Rome. The King agreed to the proposal, accompanied at the same time with an explicit declaration that no Minister could be received at Berlin from the Court of Rome. Attempts have been made since, I believe, to ascertain whether that decision is still adhered to; and the same answer has been distinctly given. If any Minister were sent to the Court of Prussia, there would be less objection, even if he had the character which I deprecate seeing here, because the King has not only numerous subjects who are Catholics, but he has the Catholic religion established in many parts of his dominions. The Catholic Church is in possession of all its temporalities, and is connected with the State in the manner in which it necessarily must be under such circumstances; but we have no such control over the Catholic Church in this coun-
880
try; we have no other security except that of the loyalty and obedience which every subject owes to Her Majesty; but we have not the security which the ample possessions and the dignities and the privileges which the subjects of the King of Prussia have in many parts of his kingdom afforded, and which must necessarily give the Government a great control over the Church so established. Then let us look, not only at the power the Nuncio would exercise in this country, but at the character and position in which you would place him. Your Lordships may recollect that at the Congress of Vienna a declaration and agreement was entered into by the Powers who were parties to that treaty, by which the regulations of the different ranks of the diplomatic service took place. The diplomatic service was divided into three ranks. The first consisted of Ambassadors, Legates, Nuncios; and it was specifically mentioned that nothing contained in it should prejudice the admitted practice with respect to the representatives of the Pope. Now, in all cases where the Pope sends a Nuncio, it is to those Sovereigns whom he styles his "dear sons," and consequently to Catholic States only, and those Sovereigns, therefore, do not object to receive him in that character; and universally it is the case that the Papal Nuncio takes precedence of all Ambassadors and of all Ministers in all Catholic countries, in contravention of the regulations entered into by the Congress of Vienna by which all Sovereigns are equal, and the rank of their Ministers is decided entirely by the period of their arrival in the country; but the Papal Minister sets aside that regulation, and takes a rank and precedence over the Ambassadors and Ministers of all others. Now in this country it is not much the practice for the diplomatic body to meet together, and to be represented by one of their number; but sometimes they do consult together, and whenever such is the case, the Nuncio would be the organ of the diplomatic body. Paris, Vienna, Naples, and every Catholic Court, of course feel no objection to admit his precedence or superiority. In consequence of the stipulation of this declaration to which I have referred, such must be the case in this country. Now, I would ask you, in what capacity is it that you give the Nuncio the precedence of all other diplomatic servants? Is it in consequence of being a Minister of the Sovereign of the Roman States? No, it is because he is the Minister of the Head of

881
the Church. That is the reason he receives it in the rest of the world; and it could only be as Minister of the Pope, as provided for in the Treaty of Vienna, that he would be admitted here in that capacity. This, to be sure, would not add to his real power, which consists in the ecclesiastical rank which he must possess in order to be a Nuncio. Now, by the Treaty of Vienna a Nuncio is put on the same footing as a Legate. A Legate was formerly a different rank from a Nuncio; but since the Treaty of Vienna the Pope appoints a Nuncio to Catholic countries only. He must be an Archbishop, and as such has an influence over the whole Catholic Church in the country to which he is accredited. With the power which he would possess, and the dignity, rank, and precedence which we could not refuse him, it would be by no means desirable to receive him in this country. The noble Marquess says that the Crown is free to decline to receive him. I confess it appears to me that the adoption of the provision intended by this Amendment would be a way by which any discussion about fitness or unfitness would be excluded, and an answer would be given to the Sovereign of the Roman States which could not give offence; whereas, after passing this Bill, if, on the first occasion that arose, Government was ungracious enough to object to the person proposed to be sent as Minister, it would be a bad thing for those amicable relations which are wished for; but when the noble Marquess talks of leaving it to the judgment of the Queen, there is ample ground for laying down the clear proposition, which would leave no doubt on the subject. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, that the question before their Lordships was on the words of the Bill to which the noble Earl proposed an addition, which would have the effect of excluding ecclesiastics; and he rather thought that those words of the Bill would not be necessary if the noble Marquess should determine to adopt the proposition submitted to his consideration, viz., to insert the words "diplomatic relations." The insertion of the words "diplomatic relations" put an end to the necessity of specifying the qualification or denomination of the party. The qualification would enable Her Majesty to decide whether She would or would not send an ambassador or receive an ambassador, or what description of person She would receive. That was entirely in Her
882
Majesty's breast, and Her Majesty would stand then precisely on the ground on which Her Majesty's servants wished to place her, viz., on the ground on which the King of Prussia and other Sovereigns of Europe stood. He had felt strongly on this subject, and agreed entirely with his noble Friend who had lately spoken on the subject. He thought it very desirable that the question of the rank and description of the person to be received, or whether any person should be received or not, should stand entirely open at the discretion of Her Majesty's Government. This was entirely a political question—ecclesiastical and religious views were not involved in the measure, which was an arrangement for political objects only. Their Lordships were projecting an arrangement, having for its object political views, and he could not vote for an Amendment which might clog Her Majesty's discretion, or the discretion of her servants hereafter.
LORD BEAUMONTexpressed his regret and surprise at the course adopted by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen). He little thought that the noble Earl would have confounded the privileges and duties of a Legate and those of a Nuncio. He little thought the noble Lord would say that a Nuncio sent on a diplomatic embassy to any country, Catholic or Protestant, Turk or Greek, would merely, by the act of being a Nuncio, be invested with any power whatever, spiritual or otherwise, over any person in such country. What authority in the world had the Nuncio in France, or any foreign Roman Catholic country? He could not fulfil the common ministerial offices of the most ordinary priest in the country without certain permission. He asked again, even in Bavaria what power had the Nuncio? His relation with the Court to which he was accredited were purely diplomatic, and confined exclusively to international affairs. He could not interfere in internal matters, and had no authority, connexion, or influence with the clergy of Bavaria. In Austria herself, what power had the Nuncio? Did not the noble Earl know that even the letters of communication from the Court of Rome to the bishop, which respected the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and proceeded from the bishop to the priest, and from the priest to the people—did he not know that every one of these papers were communicated to the Government of Austria, and were sanctioned by the Government of Austria, and authorised

883
by the civil authority, before they could be transmitted to the bishop, and the Nuncio had no voice or authority whatever in the matter. If the noble Earl said "Yes" to this, he asked him how he came to suppose that any Nuncio here would have authority which no Nuncio had there? But he would recall his memory to something also beyond that. In Portugal instances had been known where a Nuncio, venturing to overstep the border of the most absolute neutrality—going beyond mere diplomatic relations in the slightest and most trivial degree—was in one instance walked over the frontier, and in another instance recalled. He believed that if the noble Lord looked back to the history of the relations between Rome and Portugal, he would find instances similar to those he had stated. If this was the case of a Nuncio, even in Catholic Portugal—and if, in addition to this, it was known that none of the independent countries in Europe allowed meddling in their affairs, whether ecclesiastical, spiritual, or civil—when moreover it was known that in this country we could fully exercise the power of sending away any person who should overstep the bounds of diplomatic intercourse—how could the noble Earl reconcile his knowledge of these facts with the speech he had made to-night, which tended to send to the country a totally different representation of the case, and which, backed with his authority, might persuade the world that supposing any Nuncio were to arrive from Rome, he would possess a power which existed only in the idea or rather in the imagination of the noble Earl? It existed only in the imagination of the noble Earl. But that was not all. Other communications had recently taken place between Rome and countries not professing the Roman Catholic faith; but in no one instance had the representative of the Roman Court ever attempted to exceed his authority in any country with which Rome had been admitted to negotiate, and in very few cases only had the Court of Rome thought it right to send a diplomatic envoy at all. The only instance in which anything like ecclesiastical and spiritual authority had been admitted to act was in the dominions of the Ottoman Porte; and there it was not done for the purpose of giving the power to the Court of Rome, but it was done for the purpose of wresting that power from another European country. It was thought that Rome would exercise that power less injuriously to the interests
884
of Turkey than the Court which at present laid claim to it. Well, then, if this ecclesiastical power, where it did exist, was actually a matter of dispute between the Court of Rome and another European Court, namely, that of France, and if even in a third country France refused to cede to Rome the management of religious houses and regular orders—if in countries in which the Roman Catholic religion existed, the exercise of such ecclesiastical power was no longer tolerated, how could it be supposed that where such ecclesiastical power had never yet existed, that it should in the first place be attempted to create it, and then again that the means and instruments should be found to put it in force? The thing was in itself an absurdity. And he believed, excepting in the case of some very great emergencies and trying difficulties, deeply affecting the interests of Italy or the Papal States, that the Court of Rome would not go to the expense of sending a Nuncio to this country. If the Pope sent any Minister at all, it would be a Minister Extraordinary and Envoy Plenipotentiary, with power to settle any differences that might arise with regard to his own States, and not for the purpose of interfering in this country. And though that might be the case, he must remind them how the matter stood at present. The Pope and all the Cardinals of Rome had at this moment opportunities of intriguing, if they were so inclined, to the danger of this country; they might at this moment send twenty persons of this country with the power of Nuncios to breed disturbance and endanger the peace and tranquillity of the country; and the very fact that with so many means at his disposal, he never in any way sought to intrude his influence, would show that nothing could be more unreasonable than the fear which had been expressed by some noble Lords, and which had suggested this Amendment. Their Lordships were all aware that the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland were in the constant habit of carrying on intercourse touching spiritual matters with the Court of Rome. And what was the consequence of this underhand intercourse? Why, that the Pope, and his Government possessed false notions of the true state of things. Very recently a celebrated preacher, Father Ventura, publicly declared at Rome that the persecutions in Mexico by the Spaniards in the earlier ages, and the cruel-

885
ties committed in Asia on the Christians, sank into insignificance and triviality when compared with the injustice which for centuries had been systematically shown by England to her conquered and Catholic province on the other side of the Channel. Then again, they had lately had the mortification of seeing a Papal rescript in circulation in Ireland condemning that measure from which the liberal-minded in England had anticipated so much good, namely, the institution of lay colleges in the sister country. There could be no doubt that the Pope had acted in that instance upon false and incorrect information as to the real aim and object of the measure; and there could be as little doubt that had we had an ambassador at Rome from whom a true knowledge of the facts could have been procured, that rescript would never have been issued. It was to be hoped that when satisfactory relations were established between the Queen and the Pope, rescripts of a similar tendency would cease to be issued, and that his Holiness would at once be convinced that henceforth no such intermeddling in our own proper government would be permitted. He had been very much struck by a remark which had fallen from a noble Lord in the course of this debate, who, in alluding to the spiritual influence exercised by a Papal Nuncio, maintained that much good would arise to that country from that kind of influence. He (Lord Beaumont) totally differed with that noble Lord—he (Lord Beaumont) protested as strongly as he could against this country attempting to govern Ireland through Rome; if there was one thing he should like to say more than another, it would be to tell them to govern Ireland themselves, and not to admit of any meddling. And, as far as he believed, it was the opinion of the most intelligent men in Italy, that the less the Roman See had to do with Ireland the better. He begged their Lordships' pardon for having trespassed on their patience somewhat further than he had originally intended, and he would only touch upon one point more. He had been much surprised with the curious combination of parties exhibited by those who were the opponents of this Bill. The opponents of the measure were, on the one hand, those whom he might call the ultra Protestant party, and on the other, the ultra Roman Catholic party. They were actuated by different reasons. The one believed that the measure would give greater weight and greater power to the other
886
party, while the other believed that they would lose much of the influence and weight in the country they now possessed by communication between the Government of this country and Rome.
The EARL of SHREWSBURY: My Lords, though after the able manner in which this question has been debated by others, it may appear impertinent in me to address you, still I do wish to say a few words. In the first place, I am perfectly satisfied that neither the noble Lord who proposes this Amendment, nor those noble Lords who support him in it, have thereby the slightest intention of offering an insult to the Holy See. Yet, my Lords, is it not equally clear that if this clause be carried, it will deprive the measure of all its grace, if not render it altogether nugatory? I am sure, my Lords, that you would not desire to enter into diplomatic relations with any State, unless it were upon terms of perfect reciprocity; but to make this reciprocal, surely the Pope should insist upon some similar restriction upon his part. Might he not say, "I will not consent to receive any but a Catholic envoy. I deem it inconvenient, inexpedient, and even dangerous to admit a Protestant Minister, with the right of opening a chapel in the very heart of the Holy City, for the purposes of an heretical and hostile worship." My Lords, I do not use these terms offensively; I am merely using them in argument. But, should you not be very justly offended if the Pope were to make any such stipulation? Again, as I have already intimated, would not the introduction of this clause render the measure altogether inoperative? My Lords, in the present difficult and complicated relations of the Italian States, is it not essential that Rome, by far the most important of them all, should be efficiently represented? Yet is it not equally notorious, that, for the present at least, none but ecclesiastics have received anything of a diplomatic education, or have benefited by diplomatic experience? Pass this clause then, and you place an effectual bar to the accomplishment of any one of the objects you desire. It has been said that we may transact all our business at Rome; but, my Lords, why are we to have a right to know Rome better than Rome has a right to know us? or, if I may use the expression, why is the acquaintance to be all on our side? My Lords, it is this very mistrust—this mutual mistrust—this mutual misunderstanding and ignorance of each other, that prevents things going

887
on as they should do. My Lords, Prussia has been cited as an example worthy of our imitation. But, if Rome has made an inconvenient arrangement with Prussia—and a very inconvenient arrangement it has proved to be—is that a reason why we should compel her to do the same with us? Besides, my Lords, Prussia is not a parallel case. With Prussia there is a regular Concordat; and yet, as the noble Marquess (Marquess of Lansdowne) has said, the King has still the right to receive a Nuncio if he will; but having hitherto refused to do so, Rome has also refused to send a Minister. It is the same in Russia; if the Emperor has refused to receive a Nuncio, Rome has positively refused to send a Minister. My Lords, I had much rather refer to the Netherlands for an illustration, a country fully as Protestant as our own. My Lords, if I am not in error—and the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) opposite can correct me if I am—there is now a resident Nuncio at the Hague. My Lords, I do implore you then to reject this Amendment as wholly incompatible with the establishment of any diplomatic relations whatever with the Court of Rome.
LORD STANLEYwas quite sure that the noble Lord who had just sat down had only done justice to the supporters of the Amendment, in stating that he believed it was not their wish to use any language in the slightest degree likely to be displeasing to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), or those who supported the Bill. But, speaking with that frankness and openness which their Lordships had a right to use, he must say for himself, and he believed he might say also for those who agreed with him in supporting the proposed Amendment, that they believed it to be one of the greatest importance. He considered the Amendment of such importance, that he should be mainly influenced by their Lordships' adoption or rejection of it in the ultimate views which he might take of the Bill. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shrewsbury) had said that if this Amendment were carried, the Bill would be deprived of all its grace, and rendered perfectly nugatory; and he referred also to the arrangement between Rome and Prussia as one which it had been found utterly impossible in practice to enforce. But though Prussia had done that which it was now proposed to do—excluded ecclesiastics as ambassadors—there was no evidence that any anger had
888
been engendered at Rome thereby. It was in 1815 that Prussia consented to send an envoy to the Court of Rome, the sending of that envoy being accompanied by a distinct and emphatic declaration—not then introduced for the first time, but going on the principle acted upon since the time of Frederick the Great, that no ecclesiastic should be received at the Court of Prussia in a diplomatic character. In 1835, twenty years after, the consequences of that refusal on the part of Prussia were not such as had been imagined by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shrewsbury). The Court of Rome then received an envoy from Berlin; and, still more, received him without any remonstrance respecting the condition which was put in force against the Holy See. In 1835, a fresh application was made to the Court of Prussia to know whether an envoy from the Court of Rome would be received at Berlin. The answer given was, that they were disposed to deal with the question upon the footing of entire reciprocity. The noble Earl opposite had adverted to that question. What was the answer of the Prussian Ministry to the questions of the Court of Rome? "Send us an envoy and a layman, and we will receive him on the same terms as every other ambassador, and we will send you an envoy and a layman. All the privileges and all the rights which you give to us, we are ready to extend to you; but we cannot receive any envoy from you clothed with other than the usual diplomatic and temporal powers—we cannot receive any ambassador clothed with the Legate's authority or the Nuncio's authority; and upon no other terms will we ever receive an ambassador from Rome." That answer had not been considered as offensive by the Court of Rome, and the Prussian Minister was received on the same conditions as before. But then, the noble Earl said, if this country refused to receive an ecclesiastic, clothed with a spiritual authority, and undoubtedly exercising a spiritual influence over a great portion of the subjects of Her Majesty—if they refused to receive any ecclesiastic clothed with such authority—it would not be extraordinary if the Pope were to refuse to receive any bishop or minister of the Church of England possessing spiritual authority over all the subjects of this country, that might for the time being be residing at Rome. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Shrewsbury) said, that he considered we must have reciprocity, and that the Pope would be justified in

889
pursuing such a course, if this country refused, to receive none but a Roman Catholic. He (Lord Stanley) said, that that was no reciprocity at all. The reciprocity adverted to by the noble Earl was as absurd a proposition as any which could have been suggested; it would only be reciprocity if we were to demand that the envoy from Rome should be a Protestant. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) advised them not to fetter the Crown, but to leave the selection of the class of envoys, not to the Crown, but to the Minister of the Crown for the time being. It was maintained that Prussia could, should she see fit, withdraw the restrictions which she had created as to ecclesiastics, and that therefore we ought to leave to ourselves the same liberty. The circumstances of Prussia and of this country were, however, very different; the Government of this country was a constitutional Government, holding the Crown by an Act of Settlement, and being bound to uphold the Protestant religion under a solemn compact with Protestant subjects; and in this constitutional country the principle of placing confidence in the advisers of the Crown was not that principle on which it would ever be safe for the Parliament to act. Distrusting the Ministers of the Crown, and binding them down by Parliamentary restrictions, was the constitutional theory here; and therefore the parallel between England and Prussia was inapt and misleading. The noble Marquess now confessed that we ought to be jealous of any indirect encouragement of the spiritual influence of Rome. That was the principle of the Government to-day; but who would answer for the policy of the Administration to-morrow? Supposing the noble Earl, who was a Roman Catholic, were to succeed to the confidence of the Crown, he would, as a faithful subject of Rome, endeavour to extend the spiritual and temporal power of Rome; and who would say that a Roman Catholic Prime Minister would maintain the policy of the noble Marquess, and attempt to prohibit the reception of Roman Catholic envoys? Was it then, he would ask, expedient to leave such a matter to the Crown or to the Minister, when from day to day their discretion might be exercised in a precisely opposite direction? The noble Lord had declared to-night that in his judgment the very fact of the ambassador's being an ecclesiastic of so elevated a position in the Roman Catholic Church, exercising a very great authority
890
over the Roman Catholics of this country, would be the greatest recommendation for his reception. Seeing that to be the case, he (Lord Stanley) thought that the course they ought to pursue was not to leave the Minister of the Crown the power of entering into whatever relations with foreign countries he might please; and as the Court of Rome had been hitherto practically excluded from diplomatic relations with this country, he thought that Parliament, as it was now deemed desirable to enter into relations with that See, should fix the conditions on which they were willing to admit that intercourse. He (Lord Stanley) concurred entirely with the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), who spoke with so much force upon this subject, that they should relieve the Ministers of the Crown entirely from the responsibility of refusing to receive certain persons. There was danger of giving offence if an ecclesiastic once being received according to the discretion of one Minister, he was subsequently rejected on the discretion of a second Minister; but there could be no such danger if, the condition being irrevocably enacted, the noble Marquess or any one of his successors were enabled to say to the Court of Rome, "I have not raised the objection; the law in this country is more powerful than an individual; and, if we treat at all, it must be in the only way which our law has left me." In this way they would avoid all future offence; and, as he had shown, by acting in this way Prussia had been enabled with safety to herself to hold that diplomatic correspondence with the Pope which circumstances made advisable. What was the course adopted by other countries towards the ambassadors of the See of Rome? The noble Lord opposite had adverted to the course pursued in Spain, Portugal, and other countries; and he said that in the case of ambassadors to those Roman Catholic countries which were subject to the spiritual authority of the Pope, they were kept in continual supervision by the Governments of those countries; and if the Ministers of those Roman Catholic countries found it necessary to control the power and authority of the Papal Nuncio, how much more important was it in this country, where no such authority, no such control could be exercised by the Ministers of the Church of Rome, that the Parliament should step in and supply by Protestant legislation that control. Upon these grounds, and believing that whether

891
invested with spiritual authority or not, the Cardinals are, collectively and individually, very anxious, nay, hound to support the authority and to extend the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, believing that they would have the means—if accredited to a Protestant country, but possessing a large Roman Catholic population, and that they might be disposed—to increase a most dangerous spiritual influence for the purpose of promoting political and temporal objects. He would not speculate upon the probable qualities of the Minister who might be sent to this country; but this he would say, that the higher the position of such an individual, the more anxious would he undoubtedly be to extend the authority and the influence of the See of Rome in this country; and the most dangerous consequences would of necessity ensue to the Protestant community, and the peace and welfare of this Protestant country. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Marquess opposite would not hesitate to admit the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shrewsbury) feared that it would have the unfortunate effect of rendering the whole measure useless; but it would strike him on reflection that such an observation was an offence to the Roman nobles. There were many men among those nobles perfectly competent to represent, if not the spiritual, at least the temporal interests of the See of Rome; and it was with a view to the temporal interests of the See of Rome, and not to strengthening her spiritual interests, that Parliament was now ready to consent to receive thence an ambassador. For his own part, he entirely concurred with the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) that it was of very little importance for the purposes of this country whether we received an ambassador from Rome or not; and that it was of much more importance that we should have an envoy at Rome capable of protecting British interests and representing British subjects. But he would never consent, but would do his utmost to overthrow any proposal the ultimate effect of which might be to transport the Vatican from Rome to London, and to establish here, under the sanction of Parliament, a spiritual authority under the guise of a temporal Minister, and to admit a new cause of confusion and difficulty in the affairs of the administration of this country.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE 892
said, that the purport of the Bill had been well described by the noble and gallant Duke (the Duke of Wellington), who had 3aid that it was simply for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty's Ministers to enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, and ought to be viewed in a merely political light. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had just given utterance to what he must say appeared to him a most unconstitutional doctrine. Was the noble Lord not aware that the constitution of the country made the intercourse with foreign countries one of the prerogatives of the Crown, and the constitutional doctrine was to leave the Crown unfettered? This Bill was merely to enable the Crown to enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; and if the noble Lord (the Earl of Eglintoun) succeeded in carrying his Amendment, he would fetter the Crown in that respect. It had always been in the power of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to object to such persons as he deemed advisable being received in this country as diplomatic agents; but if this clause were agreed to they would deprive that Minister of the power of making objections. What danger would be avoided by the Amendment of the noble Earl? He thought, for his part, that the danger which would arise from the reception here of an ecclesiastic in the character of an envoy had been greatly exaggerated; and at any rate an ecclesiastic would not be able to do more mischief, than it would be in the power of a temporal ambassador to effect, if accompanied on his mission by a body of members of his own Church. Would the Amendment of the noble Earl prevent any such proceeding? He considered that it would be an insult and a stigma upon the ecclesiastical profession if such an exclusion was made. He saw no prospect of danger even arising from its omission. The constitutional prerogative of the country was, that the Crown should remain unfettered, and that the Minister of the Crown should be responsible for any impropriety which might occur. It certainly was against all principle that the diplomatic relations of this country should be regulated by statute.
The DUKE of RICHMONDbegged to tell the noble Marquess that the Crown of England was very much fettered in everything relating to the Roman Catholic religion; and, if their Lordships were not to fetter the Crown in the matters now under consideration, the omission would be used

893
as an argument hereafter to relieve the Crown from those other fetters which were most properly imposed in respect to the Roman Catholic faith. He believed that the Protestant feeling of England and Scotland required no such lashing up as the noble Earl opposite spoke of last night. If the Amendment were not adopted, a Cardinal might be sent as an envoy to this country; and he believed that the great majority of the Protestants of this country would, in consequence of the refusal to adopt an Amendment to prevent the reception of a Cardinal here, think that the Government intended to have one, and that thereby an opportunity would be afforded of allowing the Roman Catholic religion a chance, which it had not now, and which he hoped it never would have, of beating down the Protestant faith in this country.
The EARL of HARROWBYsupported the Amendment, as being most conducive to the safety of the Protestant Church.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he would begin by reminding the House that the question was not whether it would be expedient to have an ecclesiastic as an ambassador from the Court of Rome—such a thing might, indeed, be very inexpedient, and he himself could see many difficulties, if such a measure were carried into effect—but the main question was, whether they would curtail the prerogative of the Crown, and prevent it from exercising a privilege which always belonged to it, and whether they would encroach on the law of nations? He would show that this power, which was desired to be taken away, had been the uniform prerogative of all countries, and the established usage of all nations. At that moment there was nothing to prevent the establishment of diplomatic arrangements between the Courts of Rome and London. The Queen might receive a Nuncio from the Pope, and no infringement of the law would take place. The Minister who advised Her to receive him might be liable to a vote of want of confidence, or an impeachment, if Parliament thought fit; but there could not be a doubt that if they agreed to this Amendment they would be infringing on the prerogative of the Crown. And he would here protest against the principle laid down by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), namely, that because a prerogative might be abused, therefore it should be abolished: such was not constitutional doctrine. It was laid down in the law of nations, that every nation was empowered to
894
select an ambassador from any class which was deemed most expedient, always leaving it in the power of the State to which he was sent to determine whether it would receive him or not. He should trouble them with a quotation from Vattel. [The noble Lord then read a passage which laid down the doctrine which he had enunciated—namely, that every Sovereign State had a right to elect a member from any class to act as an ambassador for that State.] He would have them remark that the author did not specify any particular class from whom the ambassador was taken. He would conclude by again stating, that if they agreed to this Amendment they would be encroaching on the just prerogative of the Crown, and that they would be violating the law of nations.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON, who was most inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say, that if the words "diplomatic relations" were inserted in the clause, he would withdraw the Amendment of which he had given notice. The matter might be thus left generally, and nothing stated as to the persons who should be received, leaving the responsibility of reception upon the advisers of the Crown. At present Her Majesty certainly had not power to receive an ambassador from the Court of Rome; or if she had, whence was the necessity of the present Bill?
The EARL of SHREWSBURY: I merely wish to correct an error into which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), and even the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) on the cross benches have fallen, namely that in the event of diplomatic relations with Rome we were likely to have a Cardinal in this country. Now, my Lords, Cardinals are only sent as legates, never as Nuncios. I would also observe that in whatever I have said this evening, I have not spoken with any authority. I have not received any communication whatever on the subject, nor do I know the feelings of the Roman Court on this point: I have merely argued it from analogy.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEobjected to the reception of any Minister or ambassador from the Court of Rome as impolitic and dangerous.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, that the House was not then in a condition to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke, but he was satisfied that his proposition would be much the better form to give the Bill. He was of opinion that the noble

895
Duke should frame a Bill in the form which he had suggested. He should have a great objection to the reception of an ecclesiastic from the Court of Rome as ambassador to this country, and he did think that it would have been advisable to have limited the prerogative of the Crown. But upon a very full consideration of what would be the result of adding this Amendment to the noble Earl's (the Earl of Eglintoun), he could not give his voice in its favour, for he thought it would have a most ungracious appearance.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he was prepared to adopt the clause as suggested by the noble Duke; but what effect that alteration would have upon the whole Bill he could not say, and should require time to be advised upon the precise legal bearing of the words. Much had been stated about Prussia; and he believed that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had correctly stated what were the relations between Prussia and Rome; but the noble Lord had not stated what he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) considered bore a remarkable relation to the matter in question. In Prussia there existed a code of laws regulating everything appertaining to the Catholic faith; it was established in the year 1791, and in that code there is no sort of exclusion which prevented the Court of Prussia from receiving an ecclesiastic as an ambassador, although practically such an exclusion did operate, as up to the present time no such envoy or legate had been permitted.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that as the noble Marquess had signified his intention of substituting, instead of the words in the Bill, other words to enable Her Majesty to enter into "diplomatic relations" generally, he wished to know how that alteration would have the same effect as the proposed Amendment, to prevent the Crown from receiving an ecclesiastic from the Court of Rome for the purpose of diplomatic communication? Their Lordships were willing to a certain extent to relieve the prerogative of the Crown, which for a long period of time had been unable to appoint diplomatic agents in respect to the Roman States; but they were not so familiarised with those new Whig doctrines of prerogative as to go so far as to forget the whole spirit of the Protestant legislation of this country, and to enable any future Ministry to injure, perhaps, the Protestant Church, or, at all events, to give great offence to all Protestants in this
896
country, by receiving an ecclesiastical dignitary as the representative of Rome in this country.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he had already stated he should require time to know the precise legal bearing of the words. He did not say that its adoption would answer the purpose of the Amendment which had been moved. He fancied that he could see from the manner of noble Lords opposite, that they were of opinion that he had agreed to the proposition in order to influence the vote of the noble Duke; but such was not the fact. It might be in the recollection of the House, that at the very commencement of the discussion he had declared his willingness to adopt any alteration or any suggestion which he believed did not interfere with the principle of the Bill, and gave a greater security to the interests of Protestantism.
Their Lordships divided:—Content 67; Not-content 64: Majority for the Amendment 3.
Clause as amended agreed to.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONthen moved the following as a declaratory Amendment:—
"Whereas it has been enacted and declared in the provisions of various ancient laws of this realm, that the Sovereign thereof, acting by and with the advice and under the authority of both Houses of Parliament, is the sole and supreme head and governor of all matters ecclesiastical and civil within this realm, or elsewhere, the dominions of the Crown of England; and the same Acts contain provisions, having for their objects to control, regulate, and restrain the acts, conduct, and the relations of the subjects of this realm with foreign Powers upon the said matters: and whereas it is essential to the welfare of these realms that the said provisions as to the Crown and Government thereof, should be invariably maintained, and it is expedient, nevertheless, to remove any doubts which may exist as to the competence of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, to establish diplomatic relations with the Sovereign of the Roman State—"
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaw no objection to the addition of this clause, and would offer no opposition to its insertion in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
LORD REDESDALEmoved the addition of the following Clause:—
"Provided always, and be enacted, that it shall not be lawful for Her Majesty to receive any such Ambassador, Envoy Extraordinary, Minister Plenipotentiary, or other diplomatic agent, until the Court of Rome shall have declared that it doth not claim, but distinctly disavows, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or

897
pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm."
He said that he believed there was a large body of Roman Catholics in this country who were taught to look to the power of Rome in this country rather than to the legitimate power and authority of the Government of this country. The object of his Amendment was to apply a remedy to this state of things. In his opinion, it was highly desirable that before a measure like that now under consideration was carried into effect, they should have given to them, on the part of the sovereign authority at Rome, a distinct pledge and assurance that the Papal authority in Rome sought to exercise no temporal power or authority whatsoever in this country. He begged to disclaim any hostile feeling towards his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in proposing this Amendment. On the contrary, he thought that the Amendment which he now proposed would increase the efficiency of the Bill.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEcould not consent to the insertion of this clause. The effect of the addition of these words would be to defeat the object of the Bill altogether. He thought that the assertion of any such claim would be absurd, and that its renunciation was altogether unnecessary. Why, if such a claim to temporal power in these realms was set up by the Pope, of what use would it be, or what effect would it have? It was well known that for a long period the Kings of England set up a claim to be styled Kings of France, as well as of England. Even more than that, the Kings of England styled themselves Kings of France and England when negotiating treaties with French Monarchs, who were Kings of France de facto. He was sure that it would amuse the House to be reminded that when James II. was living at St. Germains, he styled himself King of France. The Kings of England had not been called upon to give up that claim. It was an absurd one. It rested on no sound foundation, and the assumption of it did no harm. The claim of the Pope to exercise temporal power in this country was just as unfounded, and any apprehensions from its exercise were quite absurd. As to the formal renunciation of it, that was a demand with which, according to the custom of the Roman State, the Pope could not comply. Seeing that no advantage could arise from this Amendment, but that, on the contrary, it was
898
calculated to defeat the object of the Bill, he felt bound to oppose it.
The EARL of SHREWSBURY: My Lords, though I am quite willing to admit that the noble Lord does not bring forward this Amendment in an invidious spirit, yet I am sure it is altogether unnecessary. The noble Lord himself says that we have solemnly abjured these doctrines and opinions; why, my Lords, there is not a Catholic in the three kingdoms who is not equally willing to abjure them in the most solemn and emphatic manner. And should they ever be reasserted by Rome—mind you, my Lords, the Church never has asserted them—I am sure we should find the same means and the same spirit to resist them, as had our ancestors in the time of Elizabeth. Having then, as I conceive, a much stronger guarantee against the influence of such doctrines and opinions than any repudiation of them on the part of Rome—a repudiation which might be made by one Pope, and withdrawn by another, I do think the noble Lord would act much more wisely by allowing things to remain as they are, and by resting his security on the good sense and the good feeling of mankind.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYsaid, that as the House had agreed to the principle of the Bill, he did not think that they would allow its objects to be indirectly defeated; and as it had been stated that this Amendment would have that effect, he would not support it.
LORD STANLEYcould not agree with the objections that had been offered against the present Amendment. He did not think that there was anything inconsistent or unreasonable in asking the Sovereign Power of Rome to give an assurance of this kind, inasmuch as the Pope was now about to enter into diplomatic relations with this country. Under those circumstances he did not think it unreasonable that the Pope should be asked to formally abandon any claim to the exercise of temporal power in those kingdoms. However, after the declaration of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shrewsbury), whose high honour no one would doubt, he would be inclined to leave the matter to the good sense of the people themselves. He (Lord Stanley) could not agree that the objection of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) was a mere shadowy objection; and if his noble Friend thought fit to press his Amendment to a division, he (Lord Stanley) would vote with him. However, as it seemed to be thought that this

899
Amendment, if carried, would create a practical difficulty in the way of the working of the Bill, he would advise his noble Friend to withdraw it.
Amendment withdrawn.
The DUKE of RICHMONDmoved the insertion of a clause, providing that no Ambassador, Envoy, or Minister from Rome should be allowed to perform any acts in this country which it would not be lawful for a British subject to perform.
LORD CAMPBELLassured the noble Duke that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, because the assumption of any such right to perform acts not lawful for British subjects to perform, was already amply and sufficiently provided against.
Amendment withdrawn.
All the clauses having been disposed of, the preamble was then agreed to, and the House resumed.
House adjourned.