with civil obedience. He would refer the | lieve the Statute-book from those enactright hon. Gentleman to Catharine of Rus- ments which, without being beneficial to sia, to Frederick of Prussia, to Henry of the Church or the Protestant population of Navarre, as to their opinion of the merits this country, had been found galling to the of civil obedience from the Jesuits. He feelings of the Roman Catholics; but, on might be allowed to quote Southey in fa- the other hand, he was not prepared to vour of the literary merits of the Jesuits. give a vote for any measure, the tendency He saidof which was to repeal those securities which were established by the Roman Catholic Relief Bill of 1829. He had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon-and from him it was a large admission-that where concessions were accompanied by securities, that those securities and those concessions ought to stand together. He accepted that opin "Hating Popery as I do, yet I am a great admirer of the Jesuits as a body of men to whom literature is much beholden, in fact all mankind. The lowest and most beggarly of them have done more as a body than any of our universities." He said that it was of the utmost importance for the spread of Christianity to obtain persons devoted to the service of God, sacrificing their temporary interest and wel-ion on the part of the right hon. Gentlefare to the interests of Christianity; attracting by their example and assiduous perseverance in their Christian duties the admiration of all, and drawing to them those who hated Christianity altogether. Were hon. Gentlemen aware of the atheistical and infidel publications now sold at the cheapest rate amongst the lower orders of the kingdom? He held in his hand a copy of the Northern Star, which contained a long advertisement, amongst others, of the following works: 66 So man, and it was on that principle he was prepared now to give his vote; and he could not allow to the right hon. Gentleman the right which he had assumed in his speech, of taking it upon himself to distinguish with regard to what were securities and what were not securities, and to declare that he was ready to give his vote for the repeal of those enactments which others held to be securities. He believed that the Bill now before the House, if not exactly identical, was essentially the same "The Infidel Text Book," ""Discussion on the with the Bill brought in by Mr. Watson Authenticity of the Bible," Discussion on the during the last Session of Parliament. It Existence of God," "Volney's Works," "Paine's consisted of two parts. One went to reWorks," "The Bible of Reasons," "The New peal certain obsolete enactments, and the Ecce Homo, or Christianity proved Idolatry," cialism made Easy," "Voltaire's Works," "Life other went to repeal the securities of 1829. Last of Robespierre," and a book called "The Three year, when the same Bill was before Impostors, or Moses, Mahomet and Christ." the House, it was contended that the right When such works as these were spread curities of 1829, and wished to do away course for those who disapproved of the seabroad, it was high time to ask for the as-with obsolete statutes, was to vote for the sistance of the Jesuits. Without this, re- Bill going into Committee, and then in ligion, justice, and honour, would forsake Committee to get rid of the objectionable this country, and seek across the Atlantic portions. According to Parliamentary pracfor that freedom and independence which tice this would be the right course. were here denied them. this Bill were before the House for the first time, he should be prepared to vote on that principle; but when he found that notwithstanding the discussion of last year this Bill was again brought forward in precisely the same shape in which it was objected to last year, he was driven to the conclusion that the part to which importance was really attached was not the repeal of obsolete statutes, but the repeal of those securities of 1829 which he trusted, in common with the majority of the House, he was desirous to maintain. He therefore wished to say simply, that if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, or any other hon. Member, would bring in a Bill simply to repeal those obsolete enactments, he SIR J. PAKINGTON was anxious to be allowed to state to the House the reasons why he was unable to arrive at the conclusions which had just been expressed by the noble Lord and by the right hon. Member for Dungarvon, and the reasons why he was unable to give a vote in support of the Committee on this Bill. He had always avowed his anxiety to relieve his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects from every disability which could possibly hurt them, and to extend to them every concession consistent with a fair and just support of Protestantism. On the same principle he had been willing to give a vote for the repeal of obsolete penal statutes, and to re If Anson, Viset. Baines, M. T. Blackall, S. W, Cayley, E. S. should be prepared to give a cordial sup- | Anson, hon. Col. port to the measure; but looking at the circumstances under which this Bill was now introduced-looking further at the provisions of this Bill, a second time seeking to repeal the securities of 1829, he felt he could not misunderstand the real object of the Bill; and notwithstanding it was his anxious wish to extend every indulgence to the Roman Catholics, he must give his vote in opposition to the Bill. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that, as during the discussion he had been twice appealed to by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and the Member for Oxford, to state his opinion as to the first provisions of this Bill, the House would excuse a few observations. If he were to answer every question, it would open a door to legal discussion which would weary the House rather than convince them, or satisfactorily occupy their time. The first question might very properly be deferred to the time when he should have an opportunity of correcting any erroneous impression which might have existed. He apprehended that it was unnecessary in this stage to enter into an inquiry of this sort. It was certainly unnecessary to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman who first put the question to him, because whatever was the answer to the question in the first branch of the Bill, he was prepared to vote on the portion_comprehended in the second division. It was quite unnecessary to make any answer to those who objected to all further exclusions, for be the answer one way or the other, they were prepared to vote in the affirmative; but there might be some Members who, thinking the settlement of 1829 final, might be prepared to go into Committee on the first branch of the subject. If he could show that there was any Act in the first branch which was not repealed, and which ought to be repealed, he should have stated sufficient ground for going into Committee. Now he believed that the Act of 13 Eliz., cap. 2, was not repealed; and if it to be repealed, it required an Act of Parliament for that purpose. He therefore trusted that the House would have no difficulty in going into Committee on the Bill. The House divided, on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:-Ayes 186; Noes 154: Majority 32. Adair, H. E. List of the AYES. Adare, Visct. ought Clements, hon. C. S. Ellice, E. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Hume, J. Jackson, W. Lewis, G. C. Macnamara, Major M'Tavish, C. C. Meagher, T. Mahon, The O'Gorman Marshall, W. Molesworth, Sir W. Monsell, W. Morpeth, Visct. Morison, Gen. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Mulgrave, Earl of Newry and Morne, Visct. O'Brien, T. O'Connor, F. Parker, J. Ricardo, O. Rich, H. Brooke, Lord Brown, H. Bruce, C. L. C. Chichester, Lord J. L. Cholmeley, Sir M. Christopher, R. A. Christy, S. Cocks, T. S. Codrington, Sir W. Cole, hon. H. A. Coles, H. B. Colvile, C. R. Compton, H. C. Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Davies, D. A. S. Deedes, W. Deering, J. Disraeli, B. Dodd, G. Duncuft, J. Dundas, G. Du Pre, C. G. Galway, Visct. Goring, C. Granby, Marq. of Greenall, G. Grogan, E. Gwyn, H. Halford, Sir H. Hall, Col. Halsey, T. P. Heathcote, Sir W. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Lennox, Lord H. G. Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Lindsay, hon. Col. Edwards, H. Lockhart, W. Lowther, hon. Col. From Islington, Twycross, Wethersfield, Canterbury, Blandford, and Wrexham, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.-From Inhabitants of the Parish of Ingrow-cum-Hainworth, against the Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome Bill.From Lichfield, for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities. -From Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, of Tewkesbury, that the Provisions of the Benefit Societies Act may be extended to them.-From Parish of St. Mary, Islington, and other places, for the Adoption of Measures to Impose the severest Penalties on all those Roman Catholic Priests who shall Denounce Persons from the Altar.-From Clerks, Masters, and Matrons of different Workhouses, that Provision may be made for the Superannuation of all Meritorious Officers who may become permanently disabled.-From Landholders, and others of the City of Aberdeen, for the Repeal of the Inventory Duty on Personal Estates (Scotland). DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE COURT OF ROME BILL. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: In pursuance of the notice which I gave the other evening, I now rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill for enabling Her Majesty to establish Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome. I am perfectly aware, in calling your Lordships' attention to this matter, that it is one which is so far of a novel nature as never to have ever continue the law of this land; with reference, my Lords, to these Acts, it has been supposed, not from anything in the Acts, but from certain doctrines held to be implied from an expression in the first of these Acts, and referred to in the second, that the Queen is by them, if not by the constitution previous thereto, disabled from establishing those diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome which it is the object of this Bill to enable her to set on foot. If I may be allowed to form an opinion, my Lords, on these Acts, I should be inclined to say that they do not so disable Her Majesty. The common sense and obvious understanding of these Acts, my Lords, I hold to be this, that they were intended to prevent any person sitting upon the Throne of these realms from being reconciled to or holding communion with the Church of Rome; that is to say, to prevent a spiritual and ecclesias been the subject of any definite proposition | land, and for which I trust that they will for legislative enactment in either House of Parliament. At the same time it has been incidentally adverted to more than once in the course of your Lordships' debates; and I myself, not long ago, in an incidental discussion in this House, ventured to intimate my own opinion (speaking, however, for myself alone), that it was most desirable that some such measure should be introduced. I have now, my Lords, the satisfaction, with the full concurrence of my Colleagues-with, I trust, the approbation of a large part of this and of the other House of Parliament, and also, I am sanguine enough to hope, with the approbation of a large portion of the inhabitants of this country-to move your Lordships to give the facilities required to Her Majesty for the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Court of England and the Court of Rome. My Lords, it has been supposed by some that there are no impediments to the Sove-tical reconciliation; but that they do not reign establishing these relations without an Act of Parliament; and I know that I shall be met in some quarters with the objection-" Why is this Act necessary? Is not Her Majesty enabled, as the law now stands, to establish the same species of diplomatic relationship with the Court of Rome, as She is with every other civilised Court and kingdom?" It is the doubt which, I admit, hangs over this part of the subject which makes it necessary for me in some degree to justify the introduction of a Bill with respect to it at all, and to call your Lordships' attention to the circumstances in the law out of which this presumed doubt has arisen. It has then been supposed that in two Acts-Acts which in the Bill on your Lordships' table are more particularly referred to-in two Acts, one of them known generally as the Bill of Rights," passed in the first year of William and Mary; the other, the Act for Settling the Succession to the Crown, passed in the 12th and 13th years of the same reign-Acts, the importance of not meddling with which, except after most mature deliberation, all of your Lordships will acknowledge-Acts, which I consider to be the muniments, and the safeguards, and the defences of the constitution of this country-Acts, against the spirit of which I should be the last man to propose anything-to propose any measure which could militate against the great, the constitutional, and holy object for which they became the law of the debar the Sovereign from establishing those diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome which the experience of the world has proved to be essential for political and temporal purposes. But there are those, my Lords, who think differently with respect to these Acts. Others have thought that, independently of these Acts, it was contrary to the law of England-Christianised as this country was previous to the time when these Acts were passed-for the Sovereign to send any diplomatic emissary or ambassador to Rome. As much, my Lords, has been said with reference to the case of Lord Castlemaine, I must direct your Lordships' attention closely to that case, for although it was held by some to bear out the doctrine of the illegality of sending ambassadors to Rome, yet I confess that I think it makes the other way, and proves the legality of sending ambassadors to Rome, although undoubtedly it would be illegal for the secret purpose for which it was suspected at the time, and, I believe, rightly suspected, Lord Castlemaine was sent. My Lords, that nobleman was selected for this commission, immediately previous to the Revolution, by that unfortunate Monarch whose peculiarity it was always to do the wrong thing at the wrong time, and to choose the wrong instrument for doing it. That the choice of Lord Castlemaine was wrong is very evident; indeed, at the time of his selection, Barillon, the French Minister at the Court of James II., observed, that in maine did wrong in simply accepting a mission to Rome; but that he did so for the purpose of secretly effecting a reconciliation in religious matters. It is, however, but fair to state that, at the time, many persons, and some of them of high authority, entertained a different opinion. I think it but fair to state that one eminent man, Bishop Burnet, did not agree in the view I have taken; but still, the bishop was one of those historians, who, although I am persuaded that he thought and wrote with honest zeal for the interests of his country, are apt to be more or less carried away by the impressions and prepossessions which they themselves are liable to. Burnet, in his admirable history, says, he conceives that Lord Castlemaine had com choosing Lord Castlemaine, the King had pitched upon the person who was exactly the most unfitted for the task-the most unfit, owing to the very little which was known of him, and the great deal too much which was known of his wife, who accompanied him. But however that may be, Lord Castlemaine proceeded on his mission, and found the Court of Rome much more occupied with temporal affairs than with those mere ecclesiastical objects which formed the immediate purpose of his visit. He came back therefore discontented, having effected nothing. Shortly afterwards the Revolution took place, and soon after the House of Commons, pursuing as it did, with commendable determination and perseverance, an inquiry into all the actions of the late reign, called Lord Castle-mitted an act of high treason; but he adds, maine to the bar of their House to account for his conduct in accepting an illegal commission. The order made by the House of Commons was in general terms that his Lordship do stand committed. He was, however, afterwards heard at the bar of this House; and if your Lordships will refer to the State Trials, you will find the whole of his interrogatories, and his speech in his own defence. Your Lordships will there see the grounds on which he based his defence. Now, the examination of Lord Castlemaine showed this, not that he went as an ambassador-not that he received instructions to go to Rome in that capacity-but that the object of these instructions was to effect a reconciliation between this country and the Papal See. And this was the sense in which the House of Commons understood the accusation, for it would be seen by referring to the resolutions of the House of Commons upon the subject, that they did not dwell upon the mere fact of the embassy to the Bishop of Rome, but upon the illegal object of the embassy. The resolution of the House ran thus : that the mission was undertaken for an improper purpose at the instance of James II. Lord Chancellor Jefferies found great difficulty in reconciling that which he knew to be the state of the law with that which he equally well knew to be the wish of his Royal Master. The following are the words of Bishop Burnet :— "So they moved to the King to send an am bassador to Rome. This was high treason by law. Jefferies was very uneasy in it. But the King's power of pardoning had been much argued in the Earl of Danby's case, and was believed to be one of the unquestionable rights of the Crown. So he knew a safe way in committing crimes ; which was, to take out pardon as soon as he had done illegal things.” My Another historian of the highest character, ambassador to the Court of Rome. Since |