Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

vised, bequeathed, or settled upon trust, so that the profits may be applied to any abbey, priory, convent, nunnery, college of Jesuits, seminary or school of popish education," is forfeited to the king, for the use of the public, by the 1st Geo. sect. 2, cap. 50. And I think, my lords, there is little danger that any monastic society without funds of any sort for its subsistence will be of long duration.

But, my lords, I know reports are confidently circulated that these laws are disregarded, and that new professions have taken place in great numbers among the nuns of the different orders since their arrival here. My lords, as to the great numbers, I disbelieve it: that some have taken place, I believe; but they have been very few; and when the particular cases are examined, there will be found to be very little ground of complaint. [The bishop then related two cases: upon which the lord chancellor observed, that it might be very improper to proceed in this particular detail; since, whatever might be said in extenuation, the thing was certainly a high offence against the laws; and the discovery of particular instances might subject the persons concerned to severe prosecutions.] My lords, I thank the learned lord for stopping me: I am sensible of the indiscretion of entering upon this detail, and shall proceed no farther in it. But the necessity of abstaining from it, which the learned lord has suggested, greatly strengthens my argument. To profess a new sister, even in the most excusable cases, is now stated by great authority to be a high offence against the existing laws; exposing the persons concerned, to the danger of very severe penalties: the learned lord therefore agrees with me that the thing is forbidden, under the highest penalties, by the laws we already have: I hope, therefore, he will agree with me in the conclusion that no new law is necessary upon this subject. My lords, with respect to the fact of the professions that have taken place, I shall only say in general, that it is my full belief and persuasion, that not one has taken place among our English nuns but in cases similar to the two I have described; in which the professed were young ladies that were upon their probation in the convent abroad, before the storm fell upon the convents. Such, and such only as I believe, have been professed in this country since the arrival of the convents

[ocr errors]

here. And, my lords, I must say more for them: I have the greatest reason to believe, that even in such cases the offence will not be repeated amongst the English nuns: I have the greatest reason to believe, and could almost venture to assure the House, that the vicars apostolic, well aware of the illegality of the practice, have cautioned their people against it, and will use their utmost influence to prevent it in the future. My lords, in saying this with respect only to the English nuns, I would not be understood to admit that any worse cases have happened among the French sisterhoods, or that the thing is likely to be repeated among them: but with respect to them, my lords, I speak with less confidence, because I have not means of information equally accurate; and I conceive that the vicars apostolic may not have the same command over them as they have over the English. But I must observe, my lords, with respect to them, that although the penal laws and the statutes of relief from penalties apply equally, as I remarked long since, to natural-born subjects and to aliens, yet if these alien nuns should be so ill-advised as to take advantage of the indulgence which our statutes extend to them, to do any thing that may justly offend or alarm the public, the summary operation of the alien bill, my lords, hangs over them. So that, with the laws respecting popery, equally applying to subjects and to aliens, with the addition of the alien bill to keep aliens in order in all points, I conceive our security against the dangers which this bill would obviate to be most complete.

But now, my lords, let us look at the means of security which this bill would provide; which I affirm to be most unconstitutional. My lords, the preamble of the bill states, that " numbers of persons belonging to certain religious orders or communities have lately come into this kingdom." Agreed, my lords; the fact is as stated. Then the preamble assumes,

that it is expedient to permit, under certain restrictions, their residence here." Agreed again: it is very convenient to permit their residence; for, with respect to the far greater part of them, their residence, upon the condition of their taking the oaths required by law, cannot but be permitted. The nuns in the proportion of nine to two, and the monks in the proportion of twenty-six to ten, are naturalborn subjects; and having taken the oaths,

have a right to reside here, in their own country, without any restrictions. Well, my lords, since here they are, and since they cannot be sent away, the bill wisely proceeds to enact, that" from the passing of this act, it shall be lawful for his majesty, his heirs and successors, when they shall think fit, to grant to such religious orders or communities professing the Roman Catholic faith, his royal licence and authority to continue to reside in these realms during the continuance of the present war, and one year after."-To continue to reside? My lords, for the continued residence of the individuals no licence is wanted; it is a matter of right with respect to most of them: the continued residence therefore which is to be licensed, must be understood of their residence as orders or communities-their residence as monastic corporations, in that form and shape; and so the words that follow explain it: the king is impowered to grant them his licence to reside, "and to perform and observe, within their respective houses, the rites and ordinances of their respective institutions; any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding." This, my lords, is what I maintain to be perfectly unconstitutional. Observe, my lords,-they are licensed to perform the rites and ordinances of what, my lords?-Not simply of the Roman Catholic religion, but of their respective institutions. My lords, did the framers of this bill know what will be allowed, or rather did they know what will not be allowed, under such a licence? Penance, your lordships know, is a rite of the Roman Catholic religion; but penance in religious houses is administered by the order and direction of the superior; and as there administered, it often consists in imprisonment for any length of time, and in other corporal severities. Good God! my prds, and are the superiors of these parliamentary monasteries to be impowered, by his majesty's royal licence, to imprison and otherwise maltreat the persons of his majesty's subjects? But, this is not all: did the framers of this bill know how, according to the notions of Roman Catholics, a new monastery may be founded?-My lords, it cannot be done by act of parliament: the Roman Catholics will not consider it as a monastery, without some considerable interposition of the authority of the ecclesiastical superiors, of the bishop of the diocese, in any country where the church

of Rome is the established Church; except, indeed, in the case of an order of nuns specially exempted from the jurisdiction of the bishop, and subject to some order of monks; which is the case of many: but in this country, where the church of Rome is only tolerated, I apprehend the vicars apostolic stand in the place of the bishop of the diocese, or other ecclesiastical superior. But, however that may be, my lords, the ecclesiastical authority, in whatever hands it may be lodged, must be interposed for the regular constitution of a monastery or a convent. And so, by this licence, the king is to give not barely a religious, but a civil political effect to these acts of the hierarchy of the Roman church. Still, my lords, this is not all: the Roman Catholic bishop cannot act in such a business of himself; he must be specially impowered by a bull of the pope. Your lordships know that the importation or putting in ure of any faculty, dispensation, bull, or instrument whatever, of the see of Rome, is prohibited by a multitude of statutes, under the highest penalties; but with all these prohibitions of the law, the king by this bill will be impowered, in the instance of settling a monastery or convent here, to dispense. My lords, have we forgotten what it was that lost James II his crown?-was it not his attempting to dispense with the laws in that very branch in which this bill would place a dispensing power in the hands of the sovereign? My lords, I see but few of my brethren upon that bench; but among the few that are present, I have the satisfaction to see a successor of one of the seven who had the honour to be committed to the Tower for the opposition they gave to the arbitrary measures of James 2nd. My lords, I trust that right reverend prelate will think it his duty, for the honour of his see, to give me his most strenuous support in the resistance I am now making to this dangerous, alarming, unconstitutional project.

But now, my lords, I will suppose that your lordships find these objections of no weight,-which I hope will not be the case; but suppose the bill passed; suppose the licences granted; they are to be only for a term (the probable term perhaps a pretty good one), till the end of the war, and one year after;-my lords, what is to become of these women when that period shall arrive. Are we then, when they are comfortably settled, attached to their

habitations, advanced in years,-are we some control; but since the statute then to say to helpless inoffensive women of the 19th of the king for the farther "Come ladies, turn out! your term is relief of Protestant dissenting ministers, expired; you can stay no longer here?" they have been under none. A school. My lords, this can never happen; they master has only to declare that he is a are in no danger: I again repeat, they Christian and a Protestant dissenting from are natural-born subjects of the king the established church of England, and born to the rights and franchises of sub- to profess his general belief in the holy jects: they have bound their allegiance to scriptures in the terms required of disthe sovereign in the terms which the law senting ministers, and no one has a right prescribes; and it never can be said to to ask him "Why have you opened them "Turn out.” But I hold up this school here? whom do you teach? or circumstance to your lordships' notice what do you teach them?" My lords, the as a manifest indication of the spirit in consequence is, that schools of much which this bill has been framed.-My worse things than popery abound in all lords, being put to my shifts, as I men- parts of the kingdom, schools of Jacotioned at the beginning, to discover what binical religion, and of Jacobinical poli the friends of this bill could say for it, I tics; that is to say, schools of atheism and have hearkened out very much to the pro disloyalty,-schools in the shape and disand con about it in company. One thing guise of charity-schools and Sunday. I have heard urged in favour of the bill is schools, in which the minds of the children this, that the Roman Catholics very much of the very lowest orders are enlightened; dislike it: they dislike it; ergo, it must be that is, taught to despise religion and the a most delectable bill! A very pleasant laws, and all subordination. Books have argument, my lords! Only consider how been composed for the use of such schools, far this will go. If a bill were brought in of the most dangerous tendency. I know to repeal the 31st of the king, the Roman that this is going on in various parts of Catholics, I will answer for them, would the kingdom, and particularly in the very much dislike that. Would your neighbourhood of the metropolis. I hope lordships, for that reason, pass it? Will that in another session the attention of your lordships apply this principle to the legislature will be turned to this most other bills now pending? There is a cer- important business: but it is much too tain bill before the House, which the mil- late in this to take up any general plan of lers exceedingly dislike: will your lord-regulation; and there is nothing that ships therefore pass it at once, without any farther investigation of its merits, or any hearing of their objections? Such a proceeding would save your lordships much time and trouble; and the final conclusion might, in that instance, for aught I know, be very right: but, my lords, this way of coming to it would not be very consistent with the wisdom and justice of parliament.

presses for any immediate regulation beyond what we already have of Roman Catholic schools in particular. My lords, it is my persuasion, that the Roman Catholics of this country are in general good subjects, loyally attached to his majesty's person and to the constitution. I must say more; I am persuaded, that of all sects dissenting from the established church, there is not one in the present My lords, there is one part of this bill, times from which either church or state and one part only, which I cannot say I has less to fear than from the Roman wholly disapprove it is that clause which Catholics. My lords, in this state of requires Roman Catholic schoolmasters things, the danger is not to the church of and schoolmistresses of a certain descrip- England from popery: the danger to be tion to make an annual return of their more dreaded is that which threatens us schools to the clerk of the peace. I all from the common enemy of the Christhink it would be very proper that go- tian name. Nothing could be more oppovernment should be informed from time site to the general interests of Christianity to time of the actual state of all Roman-nothing more opposite to the interests Catholic schools. But I would rather that this should make a part of a general bill for the regulation of all schools; a matter that loudly calls for the attention of the legislature. Time was, my lords, when schools were under

of the state-nothing more opposite to the interests of the Protestant religionthan any measure that might conduce, as the passing of this act would conduce, to a revival of the rancour between Protestants and Roman Catholics; which, I

flatter myself is dying away, if we can but persuade ourselves to let what is well alone. My lords, I could say much more against this bill; but I have taken up too much of your time: what I have said is more than sufficient to warrant the motion I now make, "That this bill be com mitted for this day three months."

The Bishop of Winchester said, that the bill appeared to him not unnecessary or nugatory, but as a moderate, wise, and necessary measure, in order to quiet the apprehensions and jealousies entertained hastily, in consequence of the great number of Roman Catholics of different religious orders and communities that had lately come into this kingdom. That such jealousies and apprehensions were entertained by prejudiced and heated minds, was but too true; and the bill was calculated to set such ill-founded apprehensions at rest. It was an enabling bill, and a bill of restraint. He thought the enabling part of it well warranted by the occasion: it was wise, considerate, and candid, to suffer the religious orders or communities, that were, through unforeseen misfortunes, driven to this country, to be put in safety as to their religious rites; and at the same time he approved of the restrictive part of the bill, because he thought it prudent to prevent any addition to their numbers, and to guard against any possible danger from their zeal to make converts. Those parts of the bill which related to the keeping of schools, he did not entirely approve of; but as the measure was in general a good one, this latter consideration should not induce him to oppose it. Lord Grenville said, that he should feel himself obliged to object to the bill, because he considered it to be founded altogether in intolerance. It was the first time, he believed, that parliament had been called upon to pass a new penal law without having some strong reason assigned in proof of its necessity; a penal law too, the tendency of which was, to excite unnecessary jealousies against an unfortunate and unoffending description of foreigners, who had been driven to seek refuge in this country. The conduct of the emigrant clergy, had been unexceptionable. He objected therefore to the enabling part of the bill, because it tended to cast an odium on a large description of individuals, against whom no charge of improper conduct had been established, and he objected to the restrictive part of it, because it was ill-timed and nugatory. [VOL. XXXV.]

The Lord Chancellor thought, that the bill contained some good provisions, and might, by amendment, be rendered highly useful. He wished therefore that it might go to a committee.

The question being put, "That the said bill be committed for this day three months," it was resolved in the affirmative.

The King's Message respecting his Personal Property, &c.] June 17. Mr. Pitt presented the following Message from his Majesty:

George R.

[ocr errors]

"His Majesty being informed that doubts have arisen, touching the powers vested in his majesty to dispose of certain estates purchased by his majesty, and also concerning the powers of his majesty, and his successors, to dispose of such real property as they may hereafter purchase, or may become entitled to otherwise, than by descent with the crown, and also touching the application of, and succession to such personal property as his majesty and his successors may be entitled to at the time of his or their demise: and that doubts have also arisen touching the powers vested in the queen to dispose of certain estates purchased by her majesty, as well as the general powers of the queen consort to dispose of real and personal property; and his majesty being also informed, that, by reason of the restrictions imposed on the alienation of the crown lands, difficulties have arisen where lands escheated to his majesty have been subject to trusts or charges, and that, in other cases, inconveniences may arise from such restrictions; his majesty recommends to his faithful Commons to take these subjects into their consideration, and to make such provisions concerning the same, as may appear to them to be proper. G. R."

June 18. The House went into a committee on the said Message, and leave was given to bring in a bill" concerning the Disposition of certain real and personal property of his majesty, his heirs and successors, and also of the real and personal property of her majesty and of the Queen Consort for the time being."

June 19. The Attorney-general brought in the said bill, which was read a first time.

Mr. Nicholls said, he thought the bill affected the rights of the heir apparent, and if he recollected distinctly the [2 C]

history of no very remote period, it was held by very able men, that the king possessed not the right of disposing of his personal property. However this might be, it was quite certain that his present majesty recovered from the duke of Cumberland a sum of money left by George 2nd to that prince, and that George 2nd contested and obtained possession of an annuity left by George 1st to the queen of Prussia, from which doubts were entertained whether the property of the king did not of right devolve to his suc

cessor.

July 3. On the motion for the second reading of the bill,

Mr. Sutton hoped that Mr. Nicholls would withdraw his opposition to the bill, as he was authorized by the prince of Wales to say, that, so far as his interest was concerned, he most readily acquiesced in it.

Mr. Nicholls said, that he felt it his duty to oppose the bill. His majesty might in his lifetime, dispose of his personal property, but he had no more right to dispose of it by will than he had to dispose of his crown. The attorney-gegeneral had founded a contrary opinion upon the 16th of Richard 2nd; but this parliamentary declaration could not be intitled a statute, because it did not appear to have had the sanction of the three branches of the legislature. It certainly was to be found upon the parliamentary roll, but it was not upon the statute roll. He quoted the opinion of lord Coke, and read some passages from the trial of lord Macclesfield, to show the difference between the parliament and the statute roll. It appeared to him therefore that the 16th of Richard 2nd, was only an ordinance, and not a statute; and lord Coke had distinctly stated, that an ordinance had not the force of a statute. He then cited a variety of cases, in which kings of England had made wills, notwithstanding which their successors, took their personal property. In giving the sovereign this power of disposal over his personal property, it should be recollected, that the personal property, of a king might be considered as going to a very great extent: if jewels were considered as personal property, why not money in the exchequer, ships, naval and military stores, &c.? In short, it would be difficult to ascertain what was personal property. In the reign of queen Anne

the opinion of eight lawyers was taken with respect to the power of her majesty to dispose of her jewels, and their opinion was that she could not. This bill had been called a declaratory bill; but he contended that it would declare that to be law which was not at present the law of the land. If, on the other hand, its object was, to create a new law, it would be extremely unjust to his majesty's suc cessors, whoever they might be. The consent of the prince of Wales was certainly sufficient as far as his rights were concerned, but it could not affect the rights of other persons. He would not enter into a consideration of the policy of this bill, because he trusted the attorney general would feel that he could not support it as a declaratory law; and if it was meant as a new law, the House must feel that it was of a na ture much too important to be brought forward at so late a period of the session. It might be said, that it was very hard that his majesty had not the same right as any of his subjects; but the answer was short, that he was not a subject, and consequently, from his situation, did not want any such right. He could not want it for the purpose of making a provision for the queen, or any of his children, because they were provided for by parliament, and, without some very strong reason, it appeared to him unwise to make so great a change as this bill most undoubtedly would make.

The Attorney General admitted, that this was a subject upon which much doubt and difficulty existed; and it was for that reason he thought there should be a parliamentary declaration upon the subject. The hon. gentleman had contended that the 16th of Richard 2nd was not entitled to the force of a statute. The hon. gentleman was incorrect in supposing that he had stated that that right originated in the 16th of Richard 2nd; he had said no such thing; he had merely quoted the 16th of Richard 2nd as a parliamentary recognition of that right. He contended, that the king had, by common law, a power of disposing of his property, though the extent of that right was not precisely ascertained. He could not be supposed to say that that right was founded in the 16th of Richard 2nd because it was exercised by his grandfather Edward 3rd. He then stated a number of instances, in which kings of England, from the earliest periods had disposed of their personal

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »