DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE
COURT OF ROME BILL.

On the Motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,

a Cardinal Legate, wearing the decorations of that office, and in which the Prince Regent was thanked for "the marks of kindness and attachment to our person, with which he had received that Legate.] Surely, then, these merely diplomatic relations could still be continued without the necessity of a new law. There was nothing, he reiterated, in the statute law, and certainly nothing in the common law of these realms, which interdicted political relations with the Sovereign of the Roman States. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), indeed, had himself stated, that he thought there was nothing in the laws of this country to prohibit such relations. It was, therefore, evidently the

forward this obnoxious measure, after four months of an interval, to induce the Pope, by promises of temporal succour in his present difficulties, to accept the measure for purposes which it was well known he objected to when it was passing through the other House of Parliament; and having obtained the Pope's assent to it, the Go

MR. ANSTEY rose to oppose its further progress. The true object of the Bill had not been laid before the House. He had, on a former occasion, urged the serious objections which were entertained by the vast majority of the Roman Catholics to this measure, but to none of which had the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, in the course of his speech on this question, made any reply; nor was any reply made by any Member who had spoken in defence of the Bill. This mea-intention of the noble Lord, in pressing sure professed to have a double object to declare the law, which it was said was in a doubtful state; and also to take away existing disabilities. It was, therefore, at once a declaratory and an enabling Act, which he need not tell any legal Gentleman in that House was an inconsistency. Was it right for the Government, after the many measures of universally admitted ex-vernment would then carry out the intencellence which they had recently withdrawn in consequence of the advanced period of the Session, to persist in bringing forward this Bill, which was objected to by Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, and that too at a time when several hon. Gentlemen who entertained the strongest objections to it had left town under the impression that it would certainly be withdrawn for the present? Ought such a measure, under such circumstances, to be thus precipitately and indecently hastened forward? In the debate on the second reading of the Bill, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) had expressed a doubt as to a statement which he had made on that occasion, to the effect that there had been open and avowed diplomatic relations between the Court of Rome and the Court of St. James's since the Unless you accept this measure, you time of Queen Mary. He would support shall not have any benefit from our diplothe statement by two quotations from the macy at the approaching Italian ConAnnual Register. The first was to be gress. He honoured the present Ponfound in vol. 1., p. 65, of the Chronicle, tiff-he knew him to be a man of tranunder the date of June 27th, 1808. [Mr. scendent vigour, wisdom, and disinterestANSTEY read the passage, giving an accountedness; but he (Mr. Anstey) would not be of the Nuncio's audience of leave]. The a party to leading even him into such second quotation was from vol. lvii. p. 120, temptation. There was something more of the General History. [The hon. and dependent on this measure than the pacilearned Member read the passage, contain-fication of Italy; the peace of these realms ing an extract from the Papal Allocution was involved in the settlement of this quesof the 4th September, 1815, which gave an account of Cardinal Consalvis's reception at the Court of the Prince Regent as

tion with which they had been charged, and which they had by no means disavowed, of " governing Ireland through Rome. It was to British diplomacy that the Government were teaching the Pope to look for the restoration of his temporal influence. The Government intended to negotiate in the affairs of Italy, not as the noble Lord had said, in the character of arbitrator, but that of mediator. He (Mr. Anstey) accepted the distinction; but that was the very reason why he would not entrust the mediator with such power when the party most interested in the success of the mediation was to be called upon to decide whether he would approve or condemn a favourite policy of that mediator in another quarter. The Government would address the Pope in such terms as these:

66

tion. If they adopted this measure under the pretext of pacifying Italy, they would fail in that; but they would go far to produce

But

SIR J. TYRELL was unwilling to prolong or interrupt the proceedings of the House; but he held in his hand a letter to which-as this might perhaps be the only opportunity afforded him of doing so

and perpetuate civil war in these islands. | felt inclined even to hope, that at the mo This measure, if it became a law, would ment this Bill received the Royal Assent, raise against the governing powers the the Pope would have ceased to be "Sojealousy, distrust, and hostility of the ma-vereign of the Roman States," in order jority of the Protestants and Roman Ca- that the object of this Bill might be detholics in these realms. The Protestants feated. He was sorry to be obliged to dewould say, that the Government had not tain the House so long on this question, attempted to deny that the object of this and the rather, because it would be again measure was to bribe the Pope-to make and again his duty to do the same. a large concession to him at their expense; the noble Lord at the head of the Goand the Roman Catholics would say that vernment had it in his power at once to the Government had not denied that their render his opposition unnecessary, and design was to bribe the Pope at their bring the Session to a close, by consentexpense. The bribe was to be the main- ing to withdraw the Bill. If the noble Lord tenance of the Pope in the possession of did not do so, he deserved no pity if he his temporal dominions. Whilst the Min- should be " sitting in his place" in that isters, by this Bill, would have the privi- House long after the 31st of September. lege of using openly the influence of the He would oppose the Bill in every stage, Pope for their political purposes, the Ro- and divide the House on every point which man Catholic subjects of the Queen in Eng- in any way touched the great principles to land and Ireland would be deprived of the which he had adverted. The hon. Mempower which they had hitherto exercised ber concluded by moving that the House of communicating with the Pope, at least go into Committee on the Bill that day in secret. So that if this Bill passed, the three months. Roman Catholics would be delivered up, bound hand and foot, to any British Minister of State who was willing to bribe or threaten; and the statesmen of this country were capable of doing both. The noble Lord the Member for Arundel (the Earl he begged to call their attention. He of Arundel and Surrey) had said, that his was of opinion, and he believed it was a vote on the third reading would be guided popular notion, that the continued protracby the manner in which the House should tion of the Session was attributable to the receive his Amendment on that part of the lengthened speeches of the hon. Member Bill which was insulting to the Pope, by for Youghal, who, from his entering the refusing to style him "Sovereign Pontiff," House, had appeared to consider that he a title by which he was known throughout was called upon to take a very conspicuous the whole of Christendom. But how could part in its proceedings, and who had the noble Lord expect to succeed in his brought forward some measures which Amendment when he had the Government had not been received by the House in a and their supporters arrayed against him? manner that could be very satisfactory to He therefore claimed the noble Lord's him. There was also a popular opinion support against this Bill in every one of very prevalent with regard to the noble the stages through which it would have to Lord at the head of the Government, who pass. He would oppose it in Committee; was not considered to feel any strong oband if the Bill did pass through Com-jections to the length of the Session. The mittee, he should move that the third fact was, that the noble Lord now resided reading be postponed for six months. If in an agreeable villa at Richmond, and he he failed in that, almost his only hope found it much more convenient to go down would be in the effect to be produced at there than to his constituents in the City. Rome by the insolent phraseology employ- He (Sir J. Tyrell) wished Her Majesty ed. If an ambassador went from this coun- would find the noble Lord a villa at some try to Rome, he would not be received by greater distance from town, for then there the Pope unless he addressed him in the might be some better chance of the Session usual style. And, if so, what was the use being shortened. He had not the advanof inserting in the Bill the insulting title of tage of being present during the former Sovereign of the Roman States?" Why discussion on this Bill; but he believed not, at all events, call him what every sane there was some little difference between man must admit him to be, Sovereign the noble Lords opposite (Lord J. Russell Pontiff of the Church of Rome?" He and Viscount Palmerston) with respect to

66

66

the grounds on which they supported the measure. He understood that the noble Lord at the head of the Government supported it with a view of governing Ireland through the instrumentality of the Bishop of Rome; while the noble Foreign Secretary gave it a sugar-plum character, and degraded it to a commercial question. He always listened to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) with great satisfaction; and he was amused at the ease with which he fobbed off Gentlemen who put inconvenient questions; but still he thought the Government would do well to consider and propose some remedial measures for Ireland. The letter to which he wished to call the attention of the House was dated "Kenmare River, West Coast of Ireland, August 6," and was written by a friend of his. on board his yacht. The hon. Baronet proceeded to read the letter, the writer of which, referring to the system of terrorism which prevailed in the country, and stating that he had been protecting a gentleman's family, said

and which would throw some light upon the subject. [The hon. Baronet here read a letter of the Rev. J. Molony, which had appeared in the Times of August the 23rd.] Let hon. Members consider these things, and say, whether the legislation required was not some vigorous measure with regard to such priests.

LORD J. RUSSELL: Difficult as it is to understand the motives of the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), who, after a discussion on the second reading, thought it necessary, in a speech of an hour long, to repeat the arguments he before used, the motives of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down are still more unintelligible. The hon. Gentleman, it appears, not having a villa at Richmond, has not found it convenient to attend the second reading of this Bill; but, having read in the newspapers some report of the speeches, which were either very inaccurately reported, or which he has not understood, he comes down and asks what the object of the Bill is, and, not choosing to have the benefit of listening to the discussion, expects that we shall again go through the arguments upon which the Bill is supported. And then, with a view of explaining something of his own opinion, he reads what is evidently a private letter; and which is only excusable on the ground of its being entirely a private letter, written with the familiarity and the carelessness with which people write private letters-a letter in which the writer, being provoked with the priests, calls them vagabonds, and very coolly says that they ought to be exterminated. Why, probably, if he was asked to justify his letter, he would say, "I mean nothing but kindness; I wrote this in a hurry, and in the freedom of familiar intercourse; and I never could imagine that anybody would be so imprudent or so blundering as to take it otherwise, or The writer added, that the name of the have the indiscretion to produce it in the priest was Hampston, in the parish of face of the whole House of Commons." I Templemore, in Kenmare. [Mr. J. dare say, he is a very respectable gentleO'CONNELL rose to order. He did not man. I observe, however, he gives a very see what a letter written by some anonymous slanderer in a drunken moment had to do with diplomatic relations with Rome.] This was not the letter of an anonymous slanderer; it was written by a gentleman whom he would be ready to produce at the bar, if necessary. The letter was not anonymous; the writer's name was Major Peton. He had also with him a letter of the 12th of August, published in the Tipperary Vindicator,

"The vagabond priests ought to be exterminated, as there is not a doubt but that in many cases they urge the people on, and, now they are frightened, pretend to try to quiet them. From what I saw last Sunday, I am quite convinced they are an awful set. Two policemen came over from Kenmare, to post up the proclamation on the chapel gate. The priest met them, and, with a volley of abuse, told them if they put it up, it would be immediately torn down. No sooner proclamation was torn to bits, and thrown into the road. The policemen put up another, and it as soon shared the same fate. These are the scoundrels Lord Lansdowne praises in the House of Lords, and the very fellow who thus defied the Queen's proclamation is constantly with Lord Lansdowne when he comes here to see his property, so his information cannot be very good respecting them; but it seems to be his main object, when here, to have no one but priests about

were the backs of the policemen turned, than the

him."

bad account of his friend, of his having deserted his wife and daughters, and run away-an account which I should think he would be sorry to have brought before the House. Every one knows that in Ireland there has been actual outbreak in one or two places, and a great part of the country has been on the eve of insurrection, and there are persons, favourers of that insurrection, whose conduct has been most reprehensible; if the gentleman of whom we

have heard, proposed and incited others | But I think that is a course very inconveto tear down the Queen's proclamation, nient to the House, and I will not assist in that was very reprehensible conduct; and it; every Gentleman who imagines his arI think that that letter which the hon. guments have not been sufficiently attended Member read, and which I saw, was a to or answered, may think he has only to letter favouring treason and rebellion. repeat them on some other day in order to Those are specimens of the conduct of get a discussion again upon the subject, individuals; if we are to enter into the and thus the House would have constant conduct of individuals we know that repetitions of former discussions. With remany priests of the Roman Catholic gard to my not having answered his statecommunion have exerted all their efforts ments, I believe it really was from the and risked their influence with their want of that brevity with which he reflocks in order to prevent them from proaches my noble Friend. When the being led into the dangerous course to hon. Gentleman made a specch the other which they were incited by the rebels who day, I listened to it for some time; but were endeavouring to seduce them from though undoubtedly there were arguments, their allegiance. What Lord Lansdowne yet I was not in possession of the chymical may have done, and whom he lives with test which would detect the solid matter in when he goes to Ireland, is hardly to the such a quantity of fluid. I was not able to purpose; but Lord Lansdowne is a man find exactly where the solid argument was; who, when he finds good conduct, whether and, therefore, although I heard a conit be in Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Ro- siderable part of his speech, and although man Catholic, has that sense of justice and I took part in the discussion afterwards, toleration that he would not allow a pecu- and replied to the arguments of the hon. liar faith to separate him from such a per- Member for Oxford and others, I felt myson. The hon. Member who has made this self incapable of replying to the argument Motion, has put forward two reasons for of the hon. Gentleman. And I do not inviting us to discuss again the second propose to reply to it now, because I find reading of this Bill. The one is, that my myself in the same situation. The hon. noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) made a Member has vaunted himself very much speech which was remarkable for its bre- upon his own legal opinions. I have gone vity. Why, I think, in these times, a upon those of Lord Campbell and Lord Member who makes a speech which is re- Cottenham; they are sufficient for me, markable for its brevity ought to be held according to my understanding, and possiup as a model. Members who have en- bly the House may be more disposed to tered the House in this Parliament for the attend to them. [Mr. ANSTEY: What first time, should be told-" Look at that are they?] With regard to the several gentleman; endeavour to do something of questions which are proper for Committee, the same kind." At all events, such a they will be raised there, and I hope we speech should not be made an occasion for shall now go into Committee accordingly. debating over again measures already discussed. I think that was a remarkably bad reason for reviving the discussion of the second reading. His other reason I think was equally unfounded; he said"I spoke at great length on the second reading, "which he certainly did; "but not many persons chose to be present to attend to my arguments; nobody seemed to mind them-nobody answered them, and therefore I think it necessary to repeat them over again." It is true we have heard, "Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed sæpe cadendo;" and the hon. Member, having made a speech which was not listened to and not answered, thinks, perhaps, that it may have some effect if he repeats his speech, and takes the chance of an audience somewhat more numerous, and the still further chance that some one may answer him.

MR. SPOONER would shortly state the reasons why he should give a vote in opposition to this question. It might be unusual to discuss a measure again on going into Committee; but if unusual circumstances attended a particular measure, it was not a factious opposition to oppose it in every stage, and by every legitimate means. The Bill, in the first instance, would have conferred a power on the Crown in contravention of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights; but when this was ascertained, the promoters of the Bill in its original form did not dare to go that length, but attempted to turn the whole matter into one of a mere Bill to resolve certain doubts. The Bill had now changed its original character; and the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) told the House that the Act was only intended to establish com