against me, is untrue, and there was nothing spent illegally on my part. But the noble Lord may, perhaps, know that something was spent in bribery. He may know that a noble and influential Member of his own family contributed largely to the expenses of that election against me; and it might have been wiser for the noble Lord, recollecting that circumstance, to have abstained from making the charge against me. I need not mention the sum to the noble Lord, for I suppose he knows the amount himself; but, recollecting the fact, I think it would have been more prudent in the noble Lord if he did not touch on that subject. Having contradicted the statement of the noble Lord most peremptorily, and I hope, satisfactorily, I now tell the noble Lord that I shall be prepared to meet any other charges he has to make against me. I feel I may have made only an imperfect reply to the noble Lord's studied attack; but I think I have answered the charge, to which I said I would confine myself, and I hope I have not trespassed too long on the House.

RELIGIOUS OPINIONS RELIEF BILL. The BISHOP of EXETER then rose and said, he would now proceed to his Motion, agreeably to the notice which he laid on their Lordships' Table a few nights ago. Their Lordships would readily believe that it was with great reluctance he addressed himself to such a course of proceeding. They would also readily suppose that he had hesitated much before he could bring himself to propose to their Lordships to give the learned Judges that additional trouble which would be imposed upon them, if these questions were proposed to them at a time when, as he was well aware, they were much oppressed by the regular business of their high office. Nevertheless. when he saw what noble and learned Lords there were in that House, he was not without hope that it would not be necessary to occupy the time of the learned Judges; for if he could persuade himself that those noble and learned Lords would give their minds judicially to these questions, and not look upon them merely as upon political questions brought before them, he did not know whither he could SIR C. BURRELL, with the permission resort for better opinions as to what the of the House, would withdraw his Amend-law of England was than was to be found within their own walls. He was in great hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would feel himself bound

ment.

MR. LAW'S Motion and the Amendment withdrawn. Amendments made by the Committee on the Bill agreed to. Bill to be read a third time on Monday. House adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, May 11, 1846.

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-2 Friendly Societies.
3 and passed. High Constables.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Eldon, and other
noble Lords, from several places, against the Charitable
Trusts Bill.-By the Bishop of Bath and Wells, from

Pontesbury, and several other places, against the proposed

Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester.-By gate, and Westerham, for the Better Observance of, and for the Prevention of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on, the Sabbath.-From Guardians of the Woburn and Shardlon Unions, for the Adoption of a Measure making the

the Archbishop of Canterbury, from Padstow, Harrow

Landlords of Cottages, where the Rents are under £6,

liable for the Poor Rates.-From Tadmoor, and several

other places, for the Protection of the Agricultural In

terest. By the Earl of Roseberry, from Free Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale, praying that a Bill may be passed for compensating Proprietors of Lands for the Purchase of Sites for Churches.-From Maybole and

Kirkwall, in favour of the Principles of Free Trade.-

From Merchants, Artificers, and others, of Ballinasloe,

praying that so much of 6 and 7 Will. IV. Cap. 116, as

tends to Relieve the Estates of the Landed Proprietors in

Ireland from the Grand Jury Cess (Ireland) Tax, may be
Amended.

particularly to regard this matter with a
judicial mind; there were circumstances
attending this matter which especially en-
couraged him in that hope, inasmuch as
the Bill, for the better understanding of
the operation of which he held it necessary
to propose these questions, was brought in
by that noble and learned Lord. It was he
(the Lord Chancellor) who proposed to strike
out of the Statute-book those important
statutes, or parts of statutes, which had
been heretofore considered as the main
bulwarks of the Constitution of England—
of England as an independent monarchy.
In the Bill then before their Lordships'
House, their Lordships were invited to
repeal so much of the Act passed in the
1st of Elizabeth, intituled "An Act restor-
ing to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction
over the Estate Ecclesiastical and Spiri-
tual, and abolishing all Foreign Powers
repugnant to the same,
as made it pun-
ishable to affirm, hold, stand with, set
forth, maintain, or defend, as therein men-
tioned, the authority, pre-eminence, power,
of any foreign prince, prelate, person, State,
or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical,
or potentate, theretofore claimed, used, or

and punishable by the same, by writing, printing, teaching, preaching, express word, deed, or act, advisedly and maliciously to deny the Queen's supremacy?" He repeated that an express denial of the Queen's supremacy was not included in the Act of the 1st of Elizabeth. That Act simply asserted the Queen's supremacy, and said nothing about the denial of it; nor was it included in the Bill then before them. He would hope that the Queen's supremacy in spiritual matters, and over estates spiritual, was so clear, undeniable, and unquestionable a part of the Constitution of this land, that, to deny it, must be a grave offence, and punishable at common law; but it was absolutely necessary that the House should know whether such were the case or not before they consented to repeal the penal enactments contained in the Statute of the 1st Elizabeth. On the subject of the Royal supremacy, they had the highest legal authority for stating that it was an essential part of the monarchy of this land. He need scarcely say that Lord Coke and Sir Matthew Hale asserted it in the strongest terms, and he would, therefore, hope that the denial of that supremacy must be an offence at common law. But if he had no doubt about it, it might be fairly asked why he proposed to ask these questions of the Judges? He should be quite content if the noble and learned Lords in that House would answer those questions decisively, and say that to deny the Queen's supre

usurped within this realm." Their Lordships would observe that the words "theretofore claimed" must refer to the period antecedent to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Their Lordships were therefore asked, by repealing this Act, to make it no longer punishable to assert the supremacy of the Pope, as theretofore exercised in this country. Then what was it they were asked to do? Need he remind their Lordships that, before the time of Queen Elizabeth, the Pope had claimed and exercised the power of deposing King John, and that the same Pope, Innocent III., claimed jurisdiction over his successor in these words, as quoted by Matthew Paris. "Is not the King of England (speaking of Henry III.) our vassal, or rather our slave?" Yes, this was the power which might be exercised with impunity if they passed this Bill, unless there were in the existing law some reserved vigour to proteet the Constitution against the attempts made, he would not say by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but in the Bill which that noble and learned Lord had laid on the Table, and had prevailed upon their Lordships to give a second reading to. He need not remind their Lordships that at no very remote time Paul III. had deposed King Henry VIII., and released his subjects from their allegiance; and that only just before this Act passed, Paul IV. acted with equal violence towards Queen Elizabeth, and declared that it was the height of presumption that she should claim the Crown of England without his permis-macy was an offence punishable by the law sion. It was on this account that this Statute was passed in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and he repeated that, unless there were some inherent rigour in the laws of England which, in spite of the Act proposed by the noble and learned Lord, would make it penal for any one to put forth the power of the Pope to its former extent, they would be no longer protected against the assertion of that power. The object of his Motion, therefore, was that their Lordships should inquire of the Judges whether there was that inherent power in the Constitution of England whether there was sufficient power in the other laws of England, were this repealed, to reach such offences as this? He had thought it right, in proposing this Motion to their Lordships, first to submit what was not directly asserted in this Bill, or the Act which it proposed to repeal. He wished to ask "whether it was an offence against the law of England,

------

of the land. If they would unanimously
say that, he would not desire to occupy
the time of the learned Judges by asking
them these questions. But there was
something very peculiar in this case. When,
on a former occasion, he (the Bishop of
Exeter) had addressed the House, his no-
ble and learned Friend proposed to insert in
the Bill a simple declaration of the Royal
supremacy. He should have been perfectly
satisfied if his noble and learned Friend
had gone one step further, and had pro-
posed that some punishment should be
annexed to the denial of it.
The no-
ble and learned Lord had siad that
was a thing he could not do that it
was contrary to the policy upon which
the Bill proceeded to go the length of
saying, that to deny the supremacy of
the Queen, in all matters spiritual as well
as temporal, was an offence against the
law of the land. The difficulty of the Bill
seemed to him (the Bishop of Exeter) to

power rested-it was in the power of the Pope to dispense with oaths of allegiance. That was the statement of Dr. Milner. He would now give the statement of a man

than whom a more liberal man never belonged to any communion whatever-he meant Dr. O'Connor. That learned divine

said

rest upon the extolling of the Pope's su- did they say, except what all Protestants have premacy. What that extolling might be said, that a manifest grievous persecution of the community for conscience' sake is an intolerable he did not profess to say. The Pope's act of tyranny? The whole difference is, that the supremacy was different in kind as well as Catholics of those times, instead of deciding for in degree from the Royal supremacy of the themselves upon so important and conscientious a Crown. The Pope's supremacy was claimed business, as Protestants claimed a right to do, over all persons—and not only in all causes, only judged the case lawful when an impartial and equitable arbiter, the ecclesiastical superior, debut in all things whether external or inter-cided that it is so, as Cardinal Allen argues." nal. The Royal supremacy claimed juris-Thus they saw upon what this deposing diction with respect to matters in foro exteriori; that was the only jurisdiction which the Crown of England claimed. The extolling of the Pope's supremacy went directly to oppose the supremacy of the Crown. But it went much further. The Pope claimed to affect the conscience to have jurisdiction in foro interiori-a claim which was never made by the Sovereign of England. Such a claim was contrary to the "There is but one difference in this respect between the genuine doctrine of Catholics and Proarticles of our religion. The Queen claimed testants, and that is explained by an historical fact nothing in foro interiori; she left that to applying to the obligation of an oath. If oaths the conscience of the individual. But the were to be immutably and eternally binding, there Pope's claims in that respect were of such never could have been a revolution in England a formidable character, that our ancestors of the army and navy had taken the oath of allewithout perjury; for all magistrates and officers had felt it necessary to set aside all extol- giance to James II. But there is a time when ling of the Pope's jurisdiction, even includ- oaths cease to be binding, and when that time ing his jurisdiction in foro interiori. Let comes the Protestant declares himself dispensed them remember that it was by means of the from their obligation. That time did come, when James's tyrannical Government rendered that power of the Pope addressing his mandate Government intolerable to the English people, and to the consciences of his subjects abroad, then the officers of the army and navy declared that he was enabled to exercise the power themselves dispensed from the obligation of their of deposing sovereigns: it was by absoly- oaths. Now, in similar circumstances a Catholic officer would pause. True,' he would say, 'it ing them from their oaths of allegiance, appears to me that I am now acquitted from all by declaring foreign princes excommuni- obligation of allegiance; but perhaps I judge too cated, that the Pope assumed the power of favourably in my own cause, and I will submit it deposing those sovereigns. It was there- to the judgment of the Church whether I am, fore necessary for any State that wished under these circumstances, absolved from my alto be free from danger of papal usurpation legiance, or not.' The Church then only pronounces us absolved from our oaths;" (but the and papal interference to have itself pro- whole mischief is, that the Church has authority tected from the setting forth publicly and to pronounce them so absolved from their oaths), by authority the right of the Pope to in"when their obligation has ceased." terfere with the consciences of its subjects; That was the statement of a Roman Caand that was done by the Act of Parlia- tholic authority; and thus their Lordships ment which it was now proposed to repeal. would see the danger lay in the power of The object of that Act was to prohibit a absolving, and that power, he contended, setting forth of the Pope's authority in could not be set forth at length publicly in such general terms as should prevent the writing, &c., as he had before mentioned, extolling of his supremacy in any way. To without imminent danger to our constituprove the importance of that enactment tional freedom. But it might be said, that let him quote the opinions of modern unless they accepted the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic authors of the highest Pope in foro interiori they could not give authority and the greatest moderation. toleration to the Roman Catholic religion. The first he would quote was not of the That, he admitted, was a great difficulty. first moderation, but he was of the highest He admitted that the Roman Catholics eminence-Dr. Milner. On this subject could not exercise their religion with freethat author saiddom unless they did submit to the supremacy of the Pope; but their Lordships would see there was a wide difference between internally entertaining that doctrine and extolling it, putting forth, and main

“What, after all, is that deposing power, with the mention of which we are all so much stunned, and the assertion of which is supposed to be so heavy a charge against our earliest divines? What

taining it to the world. Let those who posed to repeal. Those who introduced were in communion with the Pope be- this Bill had given no reason for it; they lieve, if they chose, in his supremacy, and had not even the courage to say that it was in their consciences act up to that doctrine "expedient" to pass it-nothing was heard and its dictates; but let them not feel even of that fatal word, which of late years themselves at liberty to set them forth to had been the bane of this country; and he the world. Such a doctrine-such an must ask whether there was any other opinion was immoral, and being immoral, great constitutional act embodied in the it was, he hoped, illegal too. While he statutes of the realm without any preamble said that, he also felt himself bound to de- stating the reason why it was enacted? clare that those noble Lords in communion He asked, then, should the constitution of with that Church, whom he was now ad- the land be completely changed, and the dressing, would reject everything like a supremacy of the Crown be vitally affected notion of their being released from their by this Bill, without saying why and whereallegiance; and he hoped they would see fore, and without condescending to say that he was not applying to them or to in- that it was fit to do so? It was only two dividuals like them, any part of the obser- years ago, that the noble and learned Lord vations he was then making. He con- (the Lord Chancellor) himself struck out tended, then, that if it were indeed agree- of the Bill then before the House the very able to the law of England, the Act of clauses he now introduced. The Bill inElizabeth being repealed, that the supre- troduced to Parliament by the noble and macy of the Pope might be set forth, ex- learned Lord opposite, and passed into a tolled, and maintained to the world in law two years ago, originally proposed that writing, &c., it would be, under such cir- those Acts of Parliament to which he had cumstances, absolutely necessary that they referred, should be repealed. Well, what should have some substitute for the law was done? He remembered hearing the so repealed. Were they told that any noble Lord opposite (Lord Beaumont) make practical evil had arisen from the existence his propositions in his usually fair way, deof that Statute? Was the Roman Catholic claring distinctly what he wished and what interfered with in the exercise of his re- he meant; but he (the Bishop of Exeter) ligion by reason of it? Nothing of the had the satisfaction to find afterwards that kind. It was not pretended that it pro- certain portions of the Bill did not pass. duced any such effect. But they were told And why did they not pass? Because his that it put the Roman Catholics in an in- noble and learned Friend on the Woolvidious position, making an invidious dis-sack (the Lord Chancellor) struck those tinction between them and the members of exceptionable parts out. He (the Bishop other religions. If they deemed that a of Exeter) now held in his hand the Bill painful position, he was sorry for it, and that actually passed, "as proposed to be was ready to give way to them in any amended by the Lord Chancellor on remanner that would not trench upon the port;" and the amendments consisted in constitutional securities of our Protestant striking out those very parts which his noble Church; but they would despise him if he and learned Friend now, with his own hand were to give away in compliment that inserted, without giving a reason why. It which he regarded as a security for the was for these reasons that he (the Bishop free enjoyment of the constitution of this of Exeter) thought it necessary to appeal land. The right rev. Prelate then entered from the noble and learned Lord, the advointo an explanation of the difference be- cate of the Government Bill in this House, tween the Pope's briefs and bulls-de- to the same noble Lord sitting as Lord scribing the one as those mandates which High Chancellor, together with the other had passed under the Papal privy seal, noble and learned Lords, as Judges, whom and the latter as those which passed un- he saw here, and who, he was persuaded, der the great seal of the Pope; and would give their minds to the deliberate afterwards went on say that the sending and judicial consideration of this great of a bull, such as he had described, into question. The right rev. Prelate conEngland, savoured of high treason, and cluded by moving that the following questherefore he was not surprised to find tions be proposed to the Judges:that such men as Lord Burleigh and Sir Nicholas Bacon should have caused the enactment of such a law as the Statute of Queen Elizabeth, which it was now pro

Act passed in the first year of the reign of Queen
"1. Whether, independently of so much of the
Elizabeth, intituled An Act restoring to the
Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the Estate