that harmony and good feeling among all denominations of Christians, which ali must desire to see. On the contrary, he (Dr. L.) must say, that it was calculated to prejudice the character of the clergy of that Church, and to hold them up to the odium of the people of England, to say that a measure which professed to confer a great public benefit, could not be carried into effect except through the medium of their degradation. Mr. Estcourt observed, that in most cases the clergyman, before baptism, inquired as to the age of the child, and who were its parents. were its parents. That, however, was not, he knew, sufficient to render the registry of baptism evidence of birth; but if the Legislature would enable the clergy to register both circumstances at the period of baptism the object which they had in view would be ascertained without the complicated machinery of this Bill, which he agreed would operate to discourage the members of the Church of England from having their children baptised. Mr. Pease said, the great object of this Bill was to effect a system of registration which would be complete and satisfactory, not to any particular body, but to the community at large. He thought the Bill would effect that object. He entirely agreed in the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, that it was improper to place burthens upon the necks of one denomination of Christians, which would induce the members of that denomination to neglect a religious rite. But the same principle should be carried out to Church-rates, imposed as they were upon the members of different denominations, who had in addition to support their own religious services. He (Mr. Pease) thought the Dr. Bowring thought, that the object of the Bill had been misunderstood by those who objected to it. It had nothing whatever to do with baptism, because that was a religious act in which the whole community were not concerned, but what it had to do with was the fact of birth-a fact which was important to the whole community. What was wanted in this country was a registration of those facts with which the community were interested; the birth, the marriage, and the death of individuals. In most countries those facts were registered, so that it was easy to trace any individual from the time of his birth to his death by means of the National Register. It had been suggested that the clergy should continue in the custody of the Registers. On that point he (Dr. Bowring) would only state the following fact, given in evidence by a friend of his before the Registration Com-idea, that this Bill would tempt the mittee. At the last Revolution in France and Belgium, the clergy endeavoured to regain possession of the right of registration. But the civil registration had become so popular, so useful, so efficient, that the Legislature refused to give it them. In the present system of registration, he (Dr. Bowring) must observe, that there was no distinction made between legitimate and illegitimate children, and consequently no security to the public in cases of disputed titles to property. This Bill supplied that deficiency, and would be in his opinion of great advantage. He could not refrain from making one remark in conclusion. He had observed, (and it was the case here) that whenever opposition was made by the great body of the clergy to any measure useful and advantageous to the whole community, there was always to be found at the bottom of that opposition, something in the shape of fees or emoluments. Mr. Potter expressed his great satisfaction that such a measure as that before the House had been introduced. members of the Church of England to neglect a rite of that Church, was perfectly absurd. He (Mr. Pease) could say on behalf of his denomination, that though there might be some trifling inconvenience connected with this Bill as it regarded them in particular, yet they were perfectly satisfied with it as a whole, as being a measure calculated to confer a great benefit upon the community at large, in establishing a system of universal registration. Mr. Baines said, the objection which had been raised as to the inconvenience this Bill would occasion to heads of families, fell to the ground, because it was not necessary for the parents personally to attend the Registrar, a letter, or a messenger, would convey the information equally as well. And with regard to what he might term the conscientious objection, that this Bill would encourage the omission of the rite of baptism, he (Mr. Baines) considered it would have the contrary effect; it would induce clergymen to be more zealous in laying before their congregations the importance of attending Mr. Goulburn said, he was not hostile, on the contrary, he was favourable, to a general register, and the plan he proposed would not interfere with the attaining that object. But if it could not be obtained but at the sacrifice of a religious rite, he (Mr. Goulburn) did not feel prepared to purchase it with all its advantages at such a price. It did not follow, however, that because the registers of the Church of England were to be retained, that they might not all be carried into a general Register. to that ordinance. He was sorry that the redress for which he prayed; but as the hon. Baronet, the Member for the Uni-petition was respectfully worded, and as versity of Oxford, had not spared the the facts to which the petitioner referred injurious reflections which he had made on appeared to him (Lord Lyndhurst) to be the Dissenting meeting houses, in the com- well authenticated, he felt it his duty to parison which he had made between them state them to their Lordships. The and the Church. Both would be, he petitioner, whose name was Dr. Mulholland, (Mr. Baines) trusted, roads to Heaven; had for many years held a Roman Catholic and, therefore, whether the Church was to living in the county of Louth, and, be reduced to the level of the meeting according to testimonials which he had house, or the meeting house elevated to seen, Dr. Mulholland, had obtained respect the dignity of the Church, was of very and esteem for his piety and good conduct little consequence. from all persons in the district in which he resided. It happened, however, that he had the misfortune to bring upon himself the animosity of the Roman Catholic priest in an adjoining parish, and that individual thought himself justified in circulating calumnies greatly to the prejudice and disadvantage of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in justification of his character, he applied to the titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of the province, at that time Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly saw the propriety of the appeal, and directed his vicar-general to investigate the matter. The result of the investigation was, that the vicar-general came to the conclusion that there was no foundation whatever for the charges preferred against the petitioner, and he accordingly directed the person preferring them to make a public apology. This, however, that person refused to do; and under these circumstances, the petitioner had no alternative but to bring an action in one of the civil courts for defamation of character. The action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and after a full investigation of the whole matter, a verdict was pronounced by the jury in favour of the petitioner. His conduct having thus been twice investigated-first before the domestic tribunal appointed by the titular Archbishop, and afterwards before a jury of his countrymen, he felt that his character was com Člause agreed to. On Clause 27th, which provides for the expences of registration, by imposing a certain charge on the parish rates, Mr. Trevor declared, that this expense, which was obviously for a national object, ought not to fall on the parochial funds, but on the Consolidated Fund. On this point the Committee divided, when there appeared for the original Clause: Ayes 71; Noes 28-Majority 43. Clauses to 33, agreed to. House resumed. Committee again. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, June 7, 1836. sit MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time.-Judicial Ratifications (Scotland). Petitions presented. By the Marquess of DowNSHIRE from ships to the Irish Municipal Corporations Act. By several pletely vindicated, and of course expected noble Lords from various places for the better Observance of the Sabbath. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY (IRELAND)] Lord Lyndhurst rose to present a petition from a Roman Catholic clergyman of Ireland, complaining of great injustice and oppression to which he had been exposed, and requesting the interposition and protection of their Lordships' House. He (Lord Lyndhurst) certainly could not in that instance venture to say, that their Lordships could afford the petitioner the that the matter would there have been allowed to rest. In a very short time afterwards, however, he was removed from his living by the authority of the titular Roman Catholic Primate, without any reason whatever being assigned for his removal, except the circumstance of his having instituted the civil action against a brother priest. It appeared extraordinary to the petitioner, and he thought it must also appear extraordinary to their Lordships, that this course should be adopted; Lordships should pause and consider before they received a complaint of such a nature as that contained in the present petition. If this complaint were entertained, it would be impossible to refuse a like indulgence to others; and were their Lordships really to enter into the question of how far the Church of Rome, in the discipline of its members, was actuated by correct and proper principles ? The Earl of Wicklow said, if the noble Baron, who had just sat down, was astonished at his noble and learned Friend for presenting the petition, he was in no degree less surprised at the tone which the noble Baron had adopted. He had understood, or at least had always believed, that it was the duty of every Member of that House not to refuse to present any petition properly and respectfully worded, from any oppressed person in the country, if the constitution of the realm did not afford that individual redress in any other quarter. When it was clearly evident that a person had been grossly injured, and when, under the constitution of the country, there was no court to which he could appeal for redress, he (Lord Wicklow) maintained, notwithstanding the doctrine of the noble Baron, that it was the duty of a Member of their Lordships' House to bring the subject under their Lordships' consideration. The petitioner, in the present instance, had requested him (Lord Wicklow) to support the prayer of his petition, and he certainly did so with the most unfeigned alacrity. He felt that the petitioner had been most severely and most unjustly treated-that a tyrannical power, unknown to the constitution of the country, had been exercised upon him n; and for no other reason upon earth than that he had presumed to exercise the birthright of every British subject. Was it to be endured that any British subject should be deprived of the means of support at the will or dictation of any individual, and that solely because he dared to appeal to the laws of his country in a civil case? The petitioner had shown him testimonials of character from some of the most distinguished members of his own Church, and especially from the Roman Catholic LordLieutenant of his own county, Sir Patrick Bellew, who deeply lamented the injury he had sustained, and strongly condemned the means by which that injury had been inflicted. It was truly surprising that the noble Baron (Holland), professing as he did Whig and liberal principles, should be the first to raise his voice against the reception of a petition coming from an individual claiming redress in the only court in which he could now hope to obtain it. When the prisoner waited upon him to communicate his complaint, and to ask his support, the first question he put to him was, Why do you not appeal to those persons who profess to be the representatives of your own persuasion? Why do you not appeal to some of those great patriots of your own country, who declare themselves to be friends of the oppressed who are, in fact, the representatives of the order to which you belong-who owe their seats in Parliament to the support which they receive from those of your persuasion? Surely, the matter would come with greater weight before Parliament if it were introduced by one of those in the other branch of the Legislature." But these individuals knew too well the dangers to which they were exposing themselves; they would not venture to bring upon themselves the censure of those through whose instrumentality they obtained their entrance into Parliament. He had in his possession the answer of the individual who considered himself the representative, not only of the Catholics, but of the whole body of the Irish people, in which he refused indignantly to undertake the case of the petitioner, assigning as a reason that he (the petitioner) ought rather to submit to any injury which the discipline of the Church might bring upon him, than attempt to obtain redress from the ordinary tribunals of the country. In acting otherwise, the petitioner showed that he trusted rather to the fairness of the British public than to the justice of those of his own community. He thought an application of the kind extremely welltimed, now that persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion were endeavouring to impose upon the country, by making them believe that the doctrines they professed in no way interfered with the enjoyment of civil rights and civil privileges. well that the country should have an opportunity of seeing what was the real despotism of the Roman Catholic Church. In his opinion it was the bounden duty of his noble and learned Friend to present the petition. It was Viscount Melbourne observed that both the noble Lords had allowed that the House could do nothing in the case in question. The petition was from a Roman Catholic clergyman, who said, that he had been treated with great injustice by his superior, who had dismissed him from his ecclesiastical station, and that he had not been restored by the successor to that superior, notwithstanding the rescript which had proceeded from the highest authority in the Romish Church. It was clear, therefore, that the question was entirely one of ecclesiastical discipline. But the noble Earl said, the petition was an appeal to public opinion through that House; that was, in other words, that the petitioner stated alleged facts in censure of the conduct of another person, under cover of a petition to that House, into the merits of which petition the House could not enter. Now, although he (Lord Melbourne) could not in all respects reprobate such a mode of proceeding, yet he could not put it out of his consideration that it might be carried further in other cases, and indeed to an extent that would prove very inconvenient. Under these circumstances he doubted the prudence and policy of the noble and learned Lord in presenting such a petition. There was one observation made by the noble and learned Lord to which he wished briefly to advert. The noble and learned Lord read from some documents proceeding from the episcopal authorities of the Romish Church, the titles of Bishops and Archbishops, and then contended, that the use of such titles was a violation of one of the clauses of the Act for removing the disabilities of Roman Catholics. Now he apprehended that the clause in question only prohibited those titles from being taken in ordinary style. To abolish their use in the Roman Catholic Church, would be to abolish that Church itself; for to that Church the existence of episcopal ordination and episcopal authority was indispensable. In the internal discipline of the Romish Church, the use of episcopal titles, and the exercise of episcopal authority, were essential. The Duke of Wellington must say, that the objections which had been made to the character of this petition, appeared to him to be most extraordinary; and above all, it appeared to him to be most extraordinary that the noble Baron opposite, of all persons in the world, should object to a petition from an individual with reference to a subject on which he could have no redress in any other quarter; for, if he were not greatly mistaken, he had heard the noble Lord himself present a petition from certain clergymen of the diocese of Peterborough, complaining of the questions put to them by the Bishop of that diocese preparatory to ordination. But, at all events, he had never heard such an opinion expressed by any one (the noble Viscount had been too prudent and discreet to express it) as that expressed by the noble Baron, that the petition ought not to be received. Would the noble Baron move as an amendment to his noble and learned Friend's motion, "that the petition be rejected?" For that was the course which the noble Baron ought to take, if he seriously thought that the petition ought not to be received. It was very true that, as the noble Baron had said, that House could not take any steps to redress the grievance of which the petitioner complained; but he had never heard of any instance, and, in his opinion, the noble Baron would be unable to find any instance, of the rejection of a petition to their Lordships, respectfully worded, only because no ulterior steps could be taken respecting it. The noble Baron said, that in some former debate in that House his noble and learned Friend had talked of the Roman Catholic clergy as aliens in religion, aliens in feeling, aliens in principle to the rest of the country. But he (the Duke of Wellington) begged to ask their Lordships whether, if the circumstances which had been stated by his noble and learned Friend respecting the present petitioner were true, his noble and learned Friend was not justified in speaking of the RomanCatholic clergy of Ireland as he had spoken of them? He wanted to know whether an inhabitant of this empire, going to Rome on a subject of this kind, and thereby appealing to a foreign tribunal, was not in the state which had been described by his noble and learned Friend? He would now advert to some of the arguments which had been used by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount asserted, that the Act of Parliament for relieving Roman Catholics from civil disabilities, could not be supposed to prohibit the use of certain titles used by certain persons in the exercise of their religious authority, because, forsooth, the Roman Catholic Church was an Episcopal Church, and, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary to use Episcopal titles in its administration. But did we never hear of Roman Catholics in any other part of the world but Ireland? The law had forbidden, and had succeeded, right to take such a step, than any of their in preventing, the use of episcopal titles Lordships' servants, or tenants, would have, by the Roman Catholics in England; but although their case might be as possibly although the law had equally forbidden, the present case was--one of great hardit had not succeded in preventing, the use ship and injustice. He was much surprised of episcopal titles by the Roman Catholics at the comparison which had been made in Ireland. The law, the execution of by the noble Duke, between the present which at present rested in the hands of the petition and the petition complaining of noble Viscount, was, it appeared, not suc- the questions put by the Bishop of Petercessful in preventing the use of episcopal borough to candidates for ordination. Was titles by the Roman Catholics in Ireland? the Roman Catholic Church an Established The use of these titles had been abolished Church? Were we to interfere with a in this country, and ought to be abolished Church which we neither recognised nor in Ireland, paid, because we had a right to interfere with the discipline, emoluments, and possessions of a Church which we both recognized and paid? We had no right whatever, to interfere with the discipline of any Church which we neither recognised nor paid unless that Church were guilty of some contravention of public law. The petitioner in the present case had a remedy at law. That remedy he had sought and obtained. Whether the petitioner had been unjustly treated or not, he (Lord Lansdowne), having heard only an ex parte statement, could not say; but this he would say, that if their Lordships received this petition, they could not refuse the petition of any other clergyman of the Roman Catholic religion, who complained of his superior. This might be attended with great inconvenience. At the same time, if the noble and learned Lord pressed the reception of the petition, he (Lord Lansdowne) would not oppose it; for it certainly was his opinion that great latitude ought to be allowed with respect to petitions, however it might be ultimately inconvenient and even mischievous. The Marquess of Lansdowne observed, that what had fallen from the noble Duke showed the inconvenience of entertaining such petitions as that which had been presented by the noble and learned Lord; for the noble Duke justified the terms in which the noble and learned Lord had recently spoken of the great bulk of the population of Ireland, by assuming the accuracy of the statement made in the petition a statement resting on no authority but that of the petitioner himself. Now how was it possible to know whether that statement was accurate or not, except they were prepared to enter into an inquiry on the subject. Did the noble and learned Lord propose or invite such an inquiry? Did the noble Earl opposite propose or invite such an inquiry? And yet their Lordships were told, that this was an appeal to public opinion made through their Lordships, although that assertion was unaccompanied by any proposal to inquire into the veracity of the assertions. But it was on the assumption of that veracity alone that the noble Duke could think the noble and learned Lord justified in the never-tobe-forgotten taunts, which he had, on a late occasion, thrown out against the bulk of the population in Ireland. In his opinion, the noble and learned Lord would have exercised a sound discretion if he had declined presenting this petition. As to the rejection of the petition, the House had the right, if they chose to exercise it, of refusing to receive any petition. If they received this petition, and acted consistently, they must receive all petitions from persons who were, or fancied they were, aggrieved by others; and where would that end? Were all persons in subordinate Lord Holland begged permission to say situations, stewards, clerks, and others, a few words in answer to the personal obcomplaining of the conduct of their supe-servations which had been made upon him riors, to have the privilege of making that by the noble Duke. There was nothing House the channel of an appeal to the analogous in the two petitions in question, public on their cases? They had no more The noble Duke said that the petition The Duke of Wellington wished to explain what he had said respecting the petition presented against the Bishop of Peterborough. He did not dispute the right of their Lordships to inquire into any subject, the consideration of which might be submitted to them in a petition. But there ought to be something like prudence and propriety on the part of the petitioners; and certainly, the subjects of the question which a Bishop might think fit to put to candidates for ordination, was as improper and imprudent a subject for a petition as could be imagined. |