The Express. — London, England, 1851-03-26 00:00:00

TITE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 26, 1851 IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. .----- -- . ----- 7 i st Colonies (endoreed as received in Downing-street of Mae 4th January, 1851,1 and if no answer shall h hem :sent no I explain the cause of the delay." " And Fe eaff his att tendon to certain inaccuracies in t p h ' no of the said communication as laid before t litartawer Mr their address of the 24th February, 1 1, and onleralo be printed (No. 105,) on the 10th March, ROL" The hon. baronet as about to enter into explanation regarding f his questions, and his reaso ns for asking them; and woe reer ring to the despatches by which some years ago Roman catholie bishops in the colonies were raised to a level of dietinetioereepui44 ree-owispeolates there, and to the - rim monstrance of the bishop of Sydney, when Mr. sai HAWES, in answer to the first question, d that n o answer had been returned to the despatch alluded to by the hon. baronet, but he would undertake to say that whenever one was sent, it should be laid upon the titbit. With regard to any error', the copy laid before the howl bad been printed from the copy of the bishop's letter, asells• mitted to the home government by the governor of the eslony. The first paragraph had not been printed as a quotation, but the printed copy in the hon. baronet's hand was an accurate transcript. With respect to the word " not," it WWI a typographical error on the part of this printer, and in the copy t he government hail the wool " not" was inserted. A corrected copy should be inmates diately laid upon the table, and if there was • difference between that copy and the c o py the hon. baronet had, be ', (Mr. Hawes) was not answerable for it. CEYLON.—SIR EMERSON TENNENT. Mr. CHRISTOPHER wished to ask the hon. geothermal I I the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether Sir Emmert Tennent had returned to this country from the governorddp of St. Helena of his own accord, or whether he had boss , recalled by the government in consequence of the ingots? into certain affairs connected with Ceylon ? Mr. HAWES said that Sir Emerson Tennent had come to England in canseciuence of doestic affairs, and that his arrival in this country was not connected with any public inquiry whatsoever. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. In reply to Mr. Mrs -LIMOS, Sir 0. GREY stated that the hill upon this subject would shortly, he believed, be introduced into the other house. After a short conversation on a point of " iness, b e t w een Mr. S. Berk. ley, the Speaker, and Mr. Humbuse, " Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the office of Master of the Rolls was likely Tre asury to be whether ; he begged to ask the First Lord of the any reduction of the salary of 8,0001. was contemplated? Lord J. RUSSELL replied that when the office referred to became vacant, the filling it up would be subject to any alteration en the salary which parliament might think pro per. (Hear, hear.) CHANCERY REFORMS. Mr. HUME wished to ask when the house was to expect the proposed plan of Chancery reform The hon. gentleman's question was not answered. ECCLESIASTICAL. TITLES ASSUMPTION SIL L. On the order of the day b ein g read for resuming the ad journed debate on this measure, Mr. HUME rose ad inquired if the other matters which abed On the paper would be taken up after the is4journed HOUSE OF I.Oltl)S.—Tria4DAY, Mee.ru 25. The Leese Cu seritteetk Wok his seat at five o'clock. TUB OF ENGLAND IN THE COLONIES. The Bishop of OXFORD asked a question of Lord Grey, respeetina the legal Waled of the church in the colonies, especially in Atntralie, and whether the statutery restrie tions wheli applied to the church at home were binding on the church abroad. Karl nr.Er replied that the positien of the Etigheh church in the rolianiee was a question of cart importance, but no complaint heal reached him frum any of the colonies with rttpect to any grievance which was not capable of removal by the colodial legislatures. It was quite true that various questions, rather theoretical than practical, had been suemated in the debate which took place on the sub jeet last year, so that when the resew came he really did not know to what particular points to &dare's himself. Ilader then • circumstances , he lead prepared • despatch to the governor of New South Wales, co instruettng him to item. a COMMilliOn compesed of Australian prelates, toconsider the condition of the church in thew colonies. About the same time intelligence, though not in an official shape, had reached him, that the question was about to be discussed in a 'yawl at Sydney. He therefore thought that no good would molt from an inquiry into the subject in this coun try until the inquiries in the colonies hail terminated. After Rome diecuesion, the Bishop of OXFORD observed that be thought Lord (irey's reply unsatiefactory, especially when be raid that no grievance had been brought under has notice, for the Bishop of Van Diemen's Land hail sent an arehdees in all the way to England to press the grievances of the colonial church on the rovernment. The fart was that the ("denial church, while it possessed none of the ad santagea of an establishment, was hampered by all those restrict . whirle bound the free agency of the• church at Lome, and one of the greatest evils of this penition was, that it forced the bishops, in epite of thenseelees, to art in eases of ilieipline as übeolutr autocrats without the forms of law, beaten: by acting otherwise they would run the risk of WM.; tried for libel. Earl GREY said that the Bishop of Oxford hail memo derisive! him. Ile bad never eaul that there were no grievant. ceimplaiawel of by members of the church in the colonies, or that they were grievaneesi merely speculative. What he said wee, that no grievance had been brought wader notice from the colonies which was nut capable of being remand by cabmen' legislation. The matter then deemed. ASSESSMENT OF TITIIES FOR POOR RATES. The Ear: M A LMESID' It Y 'mid, en presenting tau peti tione from the clergy of the dioecee of Beth and N elle. romplaining of the present system of aeeesing the tithes and renschanti e fur poor rater, that the injustice of which the I.ttitions complained apple equally to rent charges fur title 1 in the pee mien of lay iraproprietone last year, with the sanetion of the government, a committee Oat to consider the Rule, et of panahial assessments, and the pnacipel elitticultits with which they had to deal Was in censidt ring the mode of emceeing stock in trade, railway property, and tithes. The manner of emceeing tallei Wag unjust, end the principle was equally objectionable. The report of the eommittee stated that tithe commutation rent-eharee was generally wowed upon the real, known, sad Wee value thereof ; whilst other property was WV.C.Sed, on the estimate' value. 'I he tithe of the clergyman was wowed to the per rate upon the actual amount paid, which was an income tax on his property to the poor of the. country. Ile was not a little astonished at the tom meneement of the meeeinn to hear hi. noble friend opposite state that lee objection be the plan which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had prepaid was that pee tee would tout like to pay a second income tax. In the remaite of %Matra t, lUnaft, Wilt and Nor- Pathhe had ascertained that the amount o f s, purr rates paid by the clergy varied from 24. 2d. in the pesad on their incomes. to 20 and even 30 per cent. In Cannerthenshire . it awe raged la per cent. Lmakine at the entelliow .if the Mecum a of the working clergy, it ea, • shame that the per should he supported by them to such as extent. The pewees., the mortgagee, the funillielder, the propene.? of mining property only paid poor rate a, oreed oa their resielencee, whereon the clergyman we, charged upon every farthing of hie 101-0104.. (hear, hear.) It wag Nutlet to rentrmt, in regent to this questiou, the rodent of the right rev. prelates of the church and the winking clergy.. It was a contrast which it we.. undoubt edly not the altered of the right rev. pnlatee (they net teeing sen.untalat• for it) to err prpetuated -which viva emigre., to the church moil hurtful to the state. The peculiarities of present politieel einumetantee, the position of the government, and the slate of the other house of par liament, rewlertel it inexpedient and inileeel ueeleo to at tempt to force thin kulajtat on elmeideration at this period of the semion, if indeed in sloe etwiiin at all. Ile would, there fore, content himself, fee the moment, in putting the ques tion to her Majedyes ministers whether they had any inten tion, in the r 'Maul their continuing her elaje sy'sreeponsible advieers, to take any depe . in the attempt to remodel the law in fraina t t , that great injustice which he had endeavoured to be Ar p o in t .7.l t ibiehop of C ANTEItIH7RY, who was very indis tinctly heard, wee uualesetemel 0. say that he row simply for the purpne of making a brief reference to the remarks of the nettle e arl as to the contreet, in regard I. this lineation, lettween the positions of the prelates of the church and the woe/king clergy. 'flee noble earl hail eaenitted that the right rev. bench were, in no degree, neementable for that mowed ; but at the saint' time, Wht 31 this dice uesism would go to the puled, this eireunotame. might he forgotten, and he (the Arehhishop of Canterbury) therefore thought it right to say that is long as the law remained in ite present date, clumping certain descriptisme of pel,ollal property from contributing to the poor rates, or lung would thin cou trait, MD greatly Ana so pnaperly complaiued of, continue. (Iles?, lever.) At the sanie time, it should be understood that even at present hie right nv. lereth n were under the oblieetion of plying intlinetly suit eircuitou.sly, if not direetly and dietinetly, and that, of late years., the *Wrest, piesenteel by the noble earl, hail Inv to rendered much lane 1141,Alltaar1)114 to them. He was glut that the noble earl had taken this subject in hand. and he trusted that it would receive now, or at a future time. the attentive come aeration of the legisleture. Earl GREY week' shortly answer the question put by the noble not iris right honourabir trii red. the president of the- poor law lisierd, hail undertaken to introduce mel ange, into the other house of parliament leaning reference loth bathe law of settieMent and to the mixliticeticms in pa melee' peesentent. But it was impeseible to give the noble earl any moon whatever to expect that this proposed change in the law of aweetment would meet hie views on the matures Ile (Karl tiny) would only further ray, that in his opinion, as far an he understood hie noble friend, no greater injury could ho dune to society in thee country than to adopt thew views. Loot VOItTNIAN had presided, laet evesion, over the anaemia., appointed to investigate this eubjeet and be mutt say . that be thought thee a most inopportune period, considering thet landowners were generally reducing their rents. for urging the propoition which had been suggested by the noble earl (Malnteebury). After a few words in verb/nation from the Earl of Mei eteentser, The Bishop of OXFORD said that it should be under stood that in the committee of led year be had made a propeeition to the elicit, that the working t lergy had great capon to complain of the operation of the present lew, and that preposition had only been negative .1 in a large ettneinittee by a majority of two. It bad been his opinion then, and he contended still, that an equitable adjudication --though the strict letter of the law of Elitabeth was not oineemant with that view -would permit an exemption of the clergy un account of their personal an mires. After a few words from Lord Beattie:se, and, again, from the Earl of NI elei ES lit ke. Lord WODEHOUSE said their lordship, need not at eeact enter upon the general merits of the plan suggested ithe nuhle earl opposite `the Earl of alelinesbury), but, at the proper time, when the question was brought before the house, it would not be difficult to e eplein the reasons why, in all probability, it would be found imprac ticable. In Scotland • somewhat similar plate hail been tried fur a great number of sears and at length abandoned. The Earl of HARDWICkE admitted that though there might he individual cases in which • clergyman was ag grim eel, yet, generally speaking, he was in the same situation an others who received a money income. Tee petitions wen then ordered to lie on the table. COMMONS INCLOSVRE BILL. pin the motion of the Earl of Omelet r. this bill was read a third time and passed. Their lordships adjourned at seven o'clock. debate. The SPEAKER was understood to answer in the affirmative. A number of petitions against papal aggression were then presented. On Mr. WESTRZAO presenting some petition' from a manlier of Wesleyan methodist congregations., praying for " ii more seringent measure against papal aggreesion," Mr. HUME said be thought the hon. member (Mr. Wellhead) ought to state whether the petitions were from the old We.Ryan* or from the reformed body. (Laughter.) Mr. WESTRE.\D said the hon. member (Mr. plume) might Ink at the petitions and satisfy himself un the point. (Continued laughter.) The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. 801111017sE, who said that in yesterday evening meeting the miljaurnment of the debate he had not done so on any personal grounds, but because there had been a general undentanding that several hon. member; of cored &ratite influence a l lied to deliver their opinions on the stikjiet. lie had understood that the right hon. member for the Univereity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and the hon. 1 member for Buckingharashire (Mr. Disraeli) were boll I sunious to address the house. (11-ar, hear.) For this res. sun he (Mr. Illibhouse) had moved the adjournment. The more he had heard of this debate, the more lie had listened I to the arguments :adduced, and the more time he had taken Ito examine this question, the more was he fortified in the 1 conviction that this was not at all a subject for legislative interference. (near, hear.) The arguments offered Ia support of the Lill-that un insult hail been offered to the 1 Queen as first magistrate and suprenle head of the church, and that her prerogative and the independence of the tuition had lava ineaded-might be expressed by this logical formula-the Queen is the fountain of honour; episcopal titles are honours ; and nu one has a right to grant episcopal title. in this country but the Crown. Dui a fallacy pervaded this argument, in not separating the essence from the acci dent, and in confounding temporal with spiritual authority. Originally, bishops were elected per &rum et pop!eltim ; the crown gradually Requited a right in respect to their tem poraliti,e; but the Minnows of a bishop were still essen tially spiritual. If us, bishops were only minhetere of reli gion, their designation el , noting an office rather than a title. This was his grand übjeetion to a legislation against names rather than thing', which was unworthy of that i house and of a great nation. Mr. lloblemse then at tacked the subordinate :moment in support of the bill that the titles were derived from a foreign power, and that the Pope interfered in temporal concerns, and claimed to absolve subjects from their allegiance -a doctrine which lie observed was reprobated by all ltonein catholic.. lle maintained, on the authority of 1110 Latour, that tlw s anon law. which he vindicated from 1 the censures east upon it, was over-ridden by the law of the land; and lee repressed his altouishment at au argument I avowed in that lonia, as Well as out of doors that because the Roinish church was intolerant we should' he intolerant I too. If this bill were, as lord Palmerston hied said, a com plement of the Catholic Relief Act, it would carry the' pro vision, of that art far beyond its presumed policy ; and he *tellingly urged the government to withdraw this, fatal ma mire. Mr. PORTAL. in a brat speech, opposed the bill, which, he believed, though utterly impotent for good, would be all ;emerged for coil; it would foment religious agitation, and, while large enough to irritate Ireland, would not satisfy England. Ile shared in the feelings of indignation at the Pope's aggression, which was twofold-an ectleneetimil aggression upon the rights of a church whose existence it ignional, and a temporal aggression, by the interference of a foreign prince in the internal affair of this country. With respect to the fumes., it was not to the arm of the state to which the church should look for defence; and the tem poral aggression I, ft this bill as before. If it VILLA illteWled to legislate at all, it should be done effectually, and that could only be ley re-adopting the unhappy principle, that the recognition of that foreign power was an offence which would be a reversal ut the great policy of civil and religious liberty. Mr. J. O'CONNELL challenged any lawyer in the house to prove the spiritual supremacy of the crown front the common law ; said it was of the very essence of the Roman catholic religion to acknowledge the absolute power and supremacy of the pope. The threats of ulterior measures by the noble lord, he said, would not frighten the 'tenant catholies from resisting this bill. Ile might storm and thunder, pander to vile palmitin:l, and stir up religious ran cour ; they would still consider their bishops, in the noble lord's own words. " bishops nevertheless." Mr. LAWLESS, though a protestant, would resist this needles.. insult offered to the Roman catholic clergy, be tween whom mud the laity there existed the strongeat sym pathy. What re:MM. he asked, was there for extending the bill to Ireland ? Lord J. Russell had declared that the term - mummeries• •• in his letter referred to the Puseyites; why, not, then, legislate against them, instead of Roman catholic. F Mr. Lawless thought that the agitation upon this question had been greatly etimulated by the public I journals, and draw, a contrast-a painful one to him as a protestant-between the language which had been recently need by Ronan cathuent bishops and prelates of his own church. Mr. NICNTZ said the real question-from which the de bate had wandered-was this,-had the Pope committed as aggression against the sovereign and people of this realm? snit almost every member, not under the influence of the Pope. earn sir J. Graham, had admitted that there had been an impudent and :arrogant aggression. Theo, was this country cow• to such a miserable pass that it must submit 001 1 forei.tu aggression? Ile had said upon a former urea-400,1 and he now repeated, that there was no Roman catholic 1 nation that %alloyed prespelity, and he was not going out a l his way to encourage a religion which would not conduce to the interests of his country. Ilesiehs, he found that in on Unman catholic state could bishops be appointed without the cousent of the civil government. and was protestant England to concede what no Rain= catholic country would submit to ? Mr. SCULLY iu-tided the appointment of a Roman ca atone hierarchy in Euelail. as no more aggressive than the appesintment 4 bishops in Ireland. The language of the ehwurnents might hi, "deli-foe to the feelings of protestante, hut the +ante term. had b e en employed in the appointment of vicars apostolic. The Roman catholic prelates of Ireland had beam recognized under their territorial titles; the 21th *action of the Emaucipatiou .act had been virtually re pealed Lthis bill would revive it. and render trusts be queathed to those prelates void. The objection as to a divided allegiance had been disposed of in the debates on that act : the allegiance of Roman catholic+ had been, and always would be, true to their sovereign, and to a constitu. tion which was won by them. At least a down members rose to address the house, but the Sereeta called on Mr. lII' ME, who said in whichever aspect it was viewed, he regarded this as the most unfortunate occurrence that had taken place dining the lung period of his parliamentary life. (Hear,hear.l The speech's which he had h eard, nminded him of those which were made in that house. some 2.i years ago. w ith this difference, that at that period L there was some ground of excuse for the course that had I been pursued, whereas at prvsent, considering the changes I which had taken place its public opinion and in the law, there was's° justineetion for those who raised this gestation. He looked upon the present measure me the first retroces sion front that long series of act. by which the Roman catholic" of this conntry were relieved from grievances nuder which they lead long suffered, and by which the I people at Ireland were placed in a position in which it was probable they would be' a source of strength to the empire, , instead of a came of weakness, m they had been before. ' It was. in his mind, a most humiliating picture to we the time of the English House of Commons oczupied as it had beer,. be the neglect of moot important questions, with a matter of this kind in the middle of the loth century. (Rear. bear.) It was degrading to think that they were at the present period of the world ripping HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TurstiAs. M.twn 23. 'Flo: house met at the usual hour. PUBLIC BUSINESS. A number of petitions were presented. CONDITION OF IRELAND. Sr.. It. W. BARRON Rave notice of a i..tion for the ap pointment of a select committee to inquir. into the conch tion of Ireland, with the view of fliggt.ting a remedy for caisting distress. PATENT LAWS. Mr ItIC ARM) cave notice that neat wi.k he would move the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the polio( of altering the potent laws. FORTY-SHILLING RF.V.IIOLIIETts IN SCOT LAM). Mr. J. B. emITII p os tp o n e ,' his motion fir enabling fortyAilling freeholders in Seutlmad to vote for shires until thi• day fortnight. EQUALISATION OF roows RATE. Mr. G. BERKELEY gave notice that on this day fort- night he would move is resolution to the t fleet that there .holil.l be an equaliced pour's rate of Is. ad. in the pound. .übjeet to local government. COMMUNICATION WITH ACSTRAI.IA. lord NA AS gave notice that when th.• noble lord the member for Lymn . motion came on. he .houlit move that that branch of the subject which related to communication with Australia should be taken first. RAJAH BROOKE. Mr. IItME gave notice that he .hould. on an early day, utek the Secretary of State for Foreign Attain . whether Sir J. Brooke still held the appointment of her Majetty's Com mlnioner of Borneo. NATIONAL EDUCATION. Mr. W. 1.1 , 05 gave notice that on tbi• ivy fOrtnight he I should move a resolution, to the effect that it i. expedient for the better education of the poor that • sy.t.m of national education should be established. to be supported to local taxation. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS. Sir R. INGLIS put to the honourable Under Se cretary of State for the Colonic., the f. rowing 1111 k stioas. of which he had given nothr —. Whether any r been returned to the de.pmeh (with an inclosure) addressed by his excellency Sir Charles Fitrroy. on the 311th July. 1140, to bar Majesty's yeiocipal finzetary of Beate fur the efi if they were applicable UP OM' own (Hear' keit.) It would be just as appropriate, in lria *lid, to discuss the probability of a return to the period trhenejudges of this country sentenced witches to be burned. (Heafebear.) linty, the catholic, were as much improved tit - respelt to forifier practices as the protestanta, and it was • childish fear to suppose that the acts of former times would becommittcd again. Yet it was for a discussion of this kind that the important business ofperlisment was at and he saw no end to future discussions of a similes led. (Hear, hear.) - The real question they hod to deal with wee -now theyesems-bost able .to watemlbe United Kingd and is coming Sound - iciisausiint on that matter they could never leave out of sight that one-third of the I:nitM Kingdom differed from born in religious opinion. (Heal, hear.) It would be arrogant in him to say that he wee right and that they were wrowg ; but whether they wail right or wrong, the policy and the law of the country plead them on a fording o perfect equality with the other portion of the United Kingdom, and it was from that point of elan that it behoved them to look at this question. (Hear, hear.) He denied that the Roman catholies were merely tolerated, they enjoyed equal rights with the other portions of her Majesty's subjects, and they were at full liberty to practise and carry out the principles of their religion. (Hear, hear.) As • protestant, ho maintained that it wee inconsistent with the protestant principle of the right a private judgment to act in any other spirit towards the Roman catholics. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, it would be tyranny to do so. (Hear, hear.) Was it not a melancholy thought that the noble lord, whose whole character oral influence in the country consisted in the uniform support which he had given to religious freedom, should now, by some unaccountable blunder, bo induced to recede front that important principle. (Hear, hear.) • great deal had been said about the letter whit the noble lord had written. lie could say for kap I self that 24 hours bad not elapsed when he declared hi writing to a friend that it was impossible that that letter could be the genuine production of the noble lord who hod I, been during his whole previous career the friend of civil and religious liberty. (Hear, hear.) When he recollected the efforts of the noble lord to free the unitarians, to lase , rate the dissenters from the Test and Corporation Act, sad his efforts in behalf of the Roman esthetics, he could ma but believe that there had been some imposition. (Hew, I hear.) When he heard the speech of her Majesty in whisk she promised to maintain the free exercise of religion he all, he thought it quite impossible that a bill of this Wail I would be introduced. For, what was religious liberty bet the free exercise of religious belief, and the use of all the I ' forms necessary thereto (Hear, hear.) If that were so, where was the aggression that was said to have taken place ? I There was only one pert of the excelleut speech of the right hon. gentleman, the member fur Ripon, in which he did not concur, and that was when he char- 1 racterised the act of the Pope as arrogant, offensive, and aggressive. If the right hon. baronet had said that the matter had been introduced in an ungracious manner be' (Mr. Hume) would go with the right hon. baronet. But it now appeared that the letter or rescript was not intended to be publinhed, and this, in his opinion, cut awaynine tenths of the ground from those who argued that this was an aggression. (Hear.) All that had been done was to c hange vicars apostolic into bishops, and the change made' the Roman catholics more independent of Rome. (Hear.) Ile had seen the petition which bad been sent to Rome in 1838, asking for the change. The petition was not attended to at the time, but the application was renewed in 1818, and it was known to every one that bishops were then appointed. Where, then, was the novelty or the surprise in what hail taken place ? They acknowledged the existence of bishops in Ireland, and how could they refuse the same in England ? lie could see no offence, nor aggression in what had taken place. Why, there were no two members who did not differ in the reasons they gave for supporting the bill. (Hear, hear.) All this showed how ridiculous and absurd it was to legislate upon this subject. (Hear, hear.) It was said that it was an insult to assign dioceses to the bishops co-extensive with those of the established church. But there was the free kirk of Scotland— now more numerous than the established kirk of Scotland — which had its general assemblies, its 'synods, its presbyteries, and its parishes of the same extent as the cetablished church of Scotland, sod yet no complaint was ever made on the subject. Why then complain that the limits of the itoman catholic district., were the same as those of the established church in England ? (Hear, hear.) Ile:regarded the bill as one of pains and penalties—as the commencement of a sys tem which would not be limited to the Roman catholice. The dissenters would comeen for their share, if power was given to any one clue, to put down another. (Hear, hear.) He regretted that dissenters, who could perform their reli gious service. without impediment, should now jein in the cry which hail been raised against Roman catholic". (Hear, hear.) They ought to consider that no portion of her Ma jesty's 'subjects had supported the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts with more readiness than Roman catho lies. What • sad return did they make, when, has ing ob tained their own liberty, they now sought to place trammels on those who hail helped them to achieve it. (Hear, hear.) Having heard that 49 petitions had been presented from the Wesleyan*, he was anxious to learn from what class of Wesleyan thee proceeded. The Wesleyan , had split, like the church of England ; and he was very much mistaken if the reform party would not soon outnumber the other. It was important to ascertain whether or not the petitions I emanated from those who would keep Weal.) an, in a state of ignorance, and be themselves the l'ope. (Lauehter.) The right of private judgment was denied by the Confer ence no less than by the Roman catholic clergy; and when the whole of England was divided into districts by that body, with what ahow of justice could they deny to Roman catholic, liberty to act in • similar manner ? (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that on the ground of justice this measure ought to be rejected. Ile should oppose the bill, because if passed it would take from his fellow-sub jects the right of private judgment, and bemuse having repealed disabilities by act of parliament, they were now coked to take a retrograde step, which we, likely to be attended with melancholy results. Sir F. TIIESIGER said he had heard aggression de nounced in strong and emphatic language by all who con sidered that legislation was necessary ; he had heard the insolent and haughty time of the papal brief spoken of by some who were opposed to the bill ; but he had not houd any satisfactory explanation of the mode in which the measure would either redress the present aggres sion or race a barrier which would prevent aggression in future. If the object were to prevent the assault and aggression of an adversary they must not be content with *mhos; off the blow which had been aimed at them, but sound policy required that they should disable him from further mischief. The question was what ought to be the object of legislation ; and, in order to arrive at a just con clusion, they must consider what it WAS that had led to the aggression. lie did not believe it would be found that during the whole of the debate any Rumen catholic mem ber had stated that there was any religious necessity fur the important change which had been made by means of ' the papal brief. (Hear, hear.) If there were any spiritual wants of the Roman catholic, which justified it, they would not have been lost sight of by so acute a rea souer as Cardinal Wiseman. What was it, then, that he alleged to be the object of the papal brief ? Ile said the object was to introduce the real and complete code of the Pope, and that for that purpose the catholics must have • hierarchy. Ile (Sir F. Thesiger) could not help coming to the conclusion that there were other motive', than those which had been assigned, and that there was here an illus tration of the fact that the papal power was ever on the watch to take advantage of any favourable opportunity ; awl they were galled upon to resist this interference to the utmost of their power. (Hear, hear.) It had been said that the bill ought to be confined to England, seeing that Ireland bad fora series of years possessed Roman ca tholic bishops, having the titles of Iri,h sees, with the sanction and connivance of the legislature. He be lieved there had been great misapprehension with regard to the real state of the law in Ireland in respect to the assumption of ecclesiastical tithe. Ilia right hon. friend the member for Ripon stated in the course of his remarkable speech, that in 1793 an Irish act WY passed to banish all the archbishops and bishop , of Ire , land ; but," said he, "H, strong was the feeling in favour of complete religious toleration, that in the very next year that act was repealed." Being astonished at the assertion, lie had applied to his right hon. friend to tell him on what authority he had made it, and his right hon. friend told him that the Duke of Wellington, in a debate, a passage from which he showed him, had made the state ment in the presence of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Eldon, and Lord Tenterden, said therefore his right hon. friend thought, that without further inquiry, he was entitled to consider the statement as correct. Now, it so happened that there was no such act in 1792, and there fore he need not ray there was no art of 1793 repealing it. (Hear, hear.) There was an act of William 111. rim banish ing, not all popish ecclesiastics, to use the language of the act, but all ecclesiastics of rank, specifying them, arch bishops, bishops, vicars-general, and dean, and all the regular clergy ; and it was a very remarkable fact that that act, having been continued by several intermediate attn., was made perpetual by the Bth of Queen Anne. In the year 1782 an act was passed to enable Roman ca tholic ecclesiastics to register themselves on taking certain oaths; but the Bth section contained the remarkable eecep tion, that no person should he entitled to the benefit of the act who Resumed any ecclesiastical rank or title. (Hear, hear.) That statute was confined to Ireland. The art of 1 1793, though undoubtedly passed for the relief of the 'Roman catholic people of Ireland, had nu operation what ever as regarded ecclesiastics who assumed any rank or title ; and if hon. gentlemen would turn to the act of 1795, by means of which the College of Maynooth was founded and endowed, they would find that the Roman catholics were named after all the laity, and named, too, not as bi s hop s but as electors of divinity. (Hear, hear.) The house would obeerve, therefore, that down to the year 1793 the practice was contrary to the law. It had been said that the I'ope hail created bishops, with titular stet, in in o r . eign uni o! Elizabeth, Ireland from the time when the reformed religion was completelylie k. b y whom e she that sous ceded, appointed an Archbishop of Armagh, hut subse quently the Irish bishops, like the Enitlith, were bishops in earldom, and so far was the distinction which had been drawn in that respect between England and Ireland from being founded in fact, that, down to 1793, the acts in Ireland against the assumption of cede iiastical rank and titles were stronger than any passed in England down to that period. (low, hear.) Well, so matters remained down to the pesong of the Emancipa tion Act in 1819. and because under that act a penalty was Un posed on those who took the titles of particular tees, it was supposed that there was then • virtual repeal of all the acts passed on the subject prior to that time. Every lawyer, however, knew perfectly well that one affirmative act did not repeal another affirmative act unless the two were in consistent with each other, and therefore he apprehended that the law continued in precisely the same state as it had been with regard to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Thus it stood with respect to the assumption of titles in the colonies sad is Imbed, and he appre hended that nothing could jostify them in saying that there was any difference in the case of the latter country and iu that of England—(hear, hear)-4uffielent to prevent them - and extending their pre. entice legiaatitto to . -4 - would . . taking warning, ,____ _ _ _ .. . tau. was were anything in the recent act of the Pope to render hear.) But the view t o my !tun. and boated tn every ; pert of the United Kingdom. Ile we—. next Mok -- , lulh a l l y wa dis Ys ting . wished - _ . ... learned a legislation imperative? The Pope well knew that the view—formidable indeed—(hear, hear)—and I am oblied o e f n i t t z , fo u r p l o t n i s a w ,: ell w tinged of I"st'lrelanaia"ud. (141-7eaV,thhesthsr.) stable lord tllrt ihu thert ing mi iima ght b o e f rou him se, w i tie thc h is eisar here i disnimmr nvited t e o danger y=_au to r th ki e n cig ob d le . leid . o ff , e t r e , ex h te , : r d ) ed h N i % s m . letgailat.diouhtios wprheseichntwee.se:ectlitehelacti,ni_uincLito,is)tm.,Zoaft nacho lw.lict,llconoidneer 'ltettnese - done ? In the wiry hest of the popular the direction to which it tends. eCheers.) What wee fermett he created a new Irish biehop, the bishop that ominous passage in the speech of my hon. and of Ross ; thus throwing down the gauntlet of de- i learned friend, in which ho described the course fiance, and compelling the noble lord either to abandon of courts in this country during and since the his duty, or to involve himself in all the difficulties which year 1829? What su rrendered he told the house of benefits abused I had recently . occurred by determining boldly, and m he —what of defences —what of inroads of the ' (Sir F. Theatre) thought justly, to (-steed the bill to Ire- enemy. And are those defences nut to be repaired, are lead. (Protectionist cheer's.) lie would now call the at- the inroads not to be repelled? (Hear, hear., It is plain, tention of the house to the state of the law as related to in my hon. and learned friend's judgment, not only that bane. Down to 1829, and indeed after that period, there such things are to be done but the particular way in which were the act of prfrmunire, and the statutes of Elizabeth. they should be done he, too, clearly indicated, viz., by a When the Emancipation Act was teemed those statutes ex- restriction of the principle of religious freedom in its ap- Isted in all their force, and were sufficient for the motet- plication to the Roman catholic subjects of these realms. Sion of the kingdom. There was no necessity for royal 1 (Loud cheers front the Irish members.) For my hon. and e p os or execuaturs, of which they had heard so much, b ut learned friend said, and bc was ready to stake the question which in his opinion were not precisely suited to this king- on the Lillie.— (hear) will you introduce in com dom. But alter 1829 we began a system, of what he must mittee on the bill a clause prohibiting the meeting call inconsiderate indulgence, by which gradually were re- of Roman catholies in synod? (Hear, hear.) Now, moved from the statute book almost every security that had about that I apprehend there can be no mistake. rev - Moody existed against papal encroachment. (Hear, I presume nu member of the home (though I believe bear.) 1 hey had broken down the battlements o their there are many who would be prepared to vote for such • fortress—nay, they had almost dismantled the citadel—and clause)—l presume there is no member of the house who thus had given an opportunity to any one who was so in- would not stand up in his place and say, " I will vote for a dined to march in and take possession. (Hear, hear.) The clause prohibiting Roman catholies from meeting in synod, noble lord himself had evidently never apprehended the but I ant a friend to the full religious freedom of the recent encroachment. But this brief made its ap- Roman catholies." (Hear.) My own case on the present pee:mice, and created a very strong popular ferment occasion is this --I admit with the noble lord (J. Ituesell) throughout the country. The noble lord eaw the risiug that the debate is exhatietea, and ail the best arguments that storm, watched its progress, l aud , at last, after some little can be brought forward on either side have been stated deliberation, turning his face in the direction of the popular but my case is that of being the only member preeent, re gale he issued his celebrated letter. In that letter the I presenting an English university and a lar g e bod y of per noble lord promised that the law should be carefully ems suns deeply interested in the question, who has not ad mitted with a view to its being brought into operation, and dressed the house, while he has the misfortune to the people exulted in finding such a champion of their stand in opposition to the sentiments and judgment rights. (Hear, hear.) It was admitted that the law was of Isis colleagues in regard to this bill. (Hear, sufficient for the punishment of this aggression, owed why, hear.) I must confess that many matters have been then, had not the law been carried into operation ? introduced in the debate which might have been well (Hear, hear.) The noble lord hail said it was not avoided. Allusion has been made to the intestine divisions expedient, because the statutes had become obsolete, and it and threatened dangers of the church of England—that would look harsh if a statute long dead were dragged from is a question in which I think we shall make no progress, the statute book to meet this particular case. But then but rather complicate by incidental allusion. I will only the acts of Elizabeth had been under consideration in 1841 say, that though Ido not pretend to make light of the and 1816, and although their penalties were removed, dangers to which the church is exposed, I differ on one their prohibitions were retained. He should have thought point from my hon. and learned friend the member fur , that they would then have received a modern dress, and Midhurst, who expressed an apprehension, iu which Ido ' become ailicable to modern purposes. But the nobl e lord .um share, fur the freedom of the Queen. ( Hear, hem.) I now left t he law in the same unsatisfactory state, and had so have no such apprehension. (Cheers.) I have sufficient framed his bill as to be inapplicable to any future faith in the principle of free representative institution s, and ' form of aggression. What was the nature of the tag- in the principle of free discussion, to believe that the coa -1 gression, and what the measure which the noble setution of England is strong enough to meet and repel lord proposed for our protection ? The act of the any aggro-140n perprated or premeditated by any power Pope was evidently temporal, and framed with temporal or spiritual. (Cheers.) But with regard to the a - view to the establishment of his sovereign power over the church of England, it is idle to dispute that her eituation at kingdom of England. (" Oh, oh," from the Irish members.) the present moment is one of serious di ffi culty. (Cheerio.) The l'ope ignored the fact that in 1708 the kingdom of And, sir, if I refer to that circumstance now, it is for the England ectuad to be, and because Great Britain ; but the purpose of protesting against tell attempts to meet the spi fact woo, that Rome now abandoned a claim once made, ritual dangers of the church by temporal legislation. and anciently the " kingdom of England " was claimed as (Cheers and counter-dicers.) Met I believe those dengers part of the patrimony of St. Peter. (Hear, hear.) The may be, if you confront them with calmnese, with tens hon. and learned member for Plymouth had said that tole- mance, and with wisdom; but they will not he cured by a ration would not be complete if full faeilitieswere not given set of remedies which in times and in circumstances Mr fur the complete development of the Roman catholic more favourable to their application utterly failed. (Cheers.) church. But that full development was nothing short of 'fuming the question immediately before the house, universal dominion. (Hear, hear.) And lest it Mr. Gladsome said I want to know whether we might be concluded that proteetants were excepted from are justified in proectibing an act connected with the rule he would read to the house a very short passage the religious arrangements of a large body of our from one of the divinity class books at Maynooth. In that fellow-subjects--an act done by a pope and a car book, which lie believed was in use at the present day, the dinal, fs• whose words and language, so offensive to me principle was laid down that, " Ecelcsia, seam juris- they are not directly respou.ible. (near, hear.) If the dictionem in omnes apostaticos hereticos, et erhisonaticos, language be offensive, we must look to the substance of the rennet, ltilallgUlthl ad alias corpus non jam pertineant," and act, by which we must stand or fall. In point of principle further on, lest there might be any doubt, it added, and prudence, I can conceive other steps which would have e Societas protestantorum excusare non limiest." Therefore been wise, but it is not for no- to con-tier whether there has it was clear that the universal rule claimed over all sehis- been a breach of the law of nations. If the law of nations ntatics included the protestants among the rest. This then be broken, then nothing could be more disparaging than for was their situation, that they could not admit the principle the government to make, as for the house to listen to, a of toleration in the slightest degree without admitting the proposel to melte that breach of the law of nations whole claim of the Roman entholies as expounded by only by a letter to a bishop and an act of par themeelves. But it was said that the Pope had liarnent. (A slight interruption here occerrred, which rather receded in his pretensions in substituting for vicars rendered the right hon. gentleman inaudible for a apostolic a regular hierarchy. All he could say was that short time.) I assure the lion. member that I did nut mean it the Pope had receded it was contrary to his mood prac- to assert that the noble lord had done himself any dis tice, hut it was probably after the (whim' of our neighbours, honour by writing that letter. Ido not think the noble "realer pour mieux tauter." (Hear, hear.) Again, he pro- lord would have so demeaned and disgraced himself—for a posed to introduce the canon law, not the canon law to disgrace to hint it would have been—if he had known when whites they had been accustomed, hut a new law, the vital he wrote it that a breach of the law of nations had been principle of a kWh was to leave the ultimate appeal in every committed, as that hie interference should not have been by case to the Pope himself. But even granting that in this the regular means against the person who had done the case the Pope gave up some of his power, he was merely wrong, hint by a letter to a bishop. No ground has been laid transferring it to the church of which he was the head, fist the government to answer. If the independence of the and it was as dangerous in the one case as in the other. nation had liven violated, you should have proceeded by Such being their position, he would proceed to examine the diplomatic agency. But what is the answer made by the measure with which the noble lord proposes to meet the crisis. government to that question ? Only this .—That a clause The noble lord had himself given a character to his own was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations Bill, which bill. In 1816 the noble lord mid, "as to preventing permits prevented the Pope from sending his agents over to plead from assuming particular titles, nothing can be more absurd MS cause. That was no answer at all. The noble lord and puerile than to keep up such a distinction." Ile had said that it is not a case for war, but we are told that turned to the noble lord's bill, and asked what was it pro- we have a clause in the act regulating our diplomatic posed to do by it ? To prevent the assumption of parti- relations, which prevents the rope from being represented cuter ecclesiastical titles. (Cheers) Then, adopting the at this court by an ecclesiastic. But was that a remelt for noble lord's own expression, the desires of the country were not sending an envoy to the Pope, if he had invaded our met with a bill that was absurd and puerile. (" Hear," religion and done wroneeto the crown ? Would any one and a laugh.) lle believed the bill would be futile tell me that the Pope would have been bold enough to , even to prevent the acts condemned. Mr. O'Connell used have turned back the envoy who brought to him our cre te to say that there was no act of parliament through which dentials ? It appears that that ease is without a precedent, be could not drive • coach and six ; and he was satisfied but if you should refuse to receive an ecclesiastic it would be that this was a bill over which (he would not say through, the same thing to Rome as to refuse to receive any diplomatic for it was too small for that), but over which Carolina" Wise- representative at all, ',cause all her diplomatic reprmenta man would have no difficulty whoetever in driving his state tives are and must be ecclesiastics. fhe great powers of carriage without receiving the slightest shock himself. Eurmsc who are not in communication with the l'ope pursue (" Hem," and a laugh.) The bill proposed to prevent the exactly the course I have pointed at. Beth Itimeia and assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Now suppose Dr. Cul- Prussia—neither of which countries were in diplomatic len addressing Dr. Wiseman and calling him Cardinal communication with Rome—adopted precisely that mode of Archbishop tit Westminster, he signing himself Paul Cul - negotiation. Why, therefore, should not we adopt the len, there wets nothing to prevent this. (Hear.) Or sup- atone course , and not afford to the goventment an excuse pose the cardinal addressing Dr. Cullen as Archbishop of fur not vindicating and repelling this insult to Armagh, but signing himself Nicholas Wiseman, this would the crown by diplomatic relations; representing be no infringement of the law. (Cheers.) The bill was so the wrung to hint who had dune it, and de weak and flints,' that it required but the feeblest casuistry mantling redress. We have now got a bill before us, to break through it. True, if the person assumed the title and the question is what to do with it ? And I grant that, himself, there was the 1.001. penalty ; but any other person however right or wrong the government may be, we must might address him by it without incurring asp penalty. make up our minds on the question they have proposed, The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General had both whether we should vote or nut for the second reading of stated that the bill would prevent synodical action. He this bill: The- noble lord, at the lie-ginning of his speech, presumed from that statement that it was their intention made the remark, that the bill was eagerly attacked it should do so. But he bad some doubt whether, as it on the one side and as eagerly defended on the stood, this first clause—and it was to be the only clause— other. But I have heard nn man, of the twenty would prevent synodical action. As there was doubt on the six who, I think, have spoken in this debate, subject, the best way to bring the matter to the test was to who was very eager in the defence of this bill. introduce a clause specifically to prevent synodical action. (hear, hear.) My hon. and learned friend who has just (Cheers.) They could not but supporte that it was after sat down was eager in denouncing the act of the Pope, but careful and guarded deliberation that the clauses were I did not hear one word from him in advocacy of the bill ; framed which were to bear so extensive au operation ; but our, indeed, have I heard one man speak in defence of the the right hon. baronet (Sir (y. Grey) had toed them that bill, or attempt to show that it is adequate to the not may did the bill not express in terms what was meant, purpose for which it has been introduced. (Cheers.) but that it expromed what was never meant—(hear, 1 think that my honourable and learned friend called the hear)—for be said that if the second and third clauses bill " absurd and puerile"—(hear, hear)—and indeed my were allowed to continue, they would operate, the learned friend went further, and mid that the noble lord one to prevent letters of ordination, and other doeu.. himself had so described it. (Laughter and cheering.) mente having legal effect, the consequence of which might !loth of the law officers of the crown—the Attorney lie serious, and the other to prevent bequests and en- General and the Suiciter-General—have alluded to the dowments being made to Roman cathoolics. The hon. question as to whether this bill—this retrenched bill, I member for Dundalk had quoted the opinions of eminent mean—would prevent synodical action. I understood the lawyers to show that alter thine two clauses were swept Attorney-General most distinctly to my that the bill with away still the bill would have that effect. No opinion had its one clause—and I understood the Solicitor-General as been offered in opposition to that of the eminent gentleman distinctly to say that the bill with its one clause would pre quoted, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) was dispeaml to think it vent synodical action. (" Hear, hear," and " No, no.") Was right ; for as the first clause prohibited the title, any Sir, I have not doubted what was the intentiox of the act done by the Roman catholic bishop under the prohibited hun. and learned gentleman, and I will not believe any title would be void. So far the second section appeared to other et idence when my own ears put me in possession of . him to lie involved in the first. With regard to the led clause, what he says. (Hear, hear.) But I yam from this to he thought under the Charitable Bequests Act there might be another point. this distinction: if the bequest was mole to trustees on ouch The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I said that the Roman terms that there would be a sufficient designation of the per- catholics themselves put it on that ground, that they said son independent of the, prohibited title, it would bv n i o ll t e le t t. L - gau v p. o in id sst , W inai r ted ri nt torial titles were essential to synodical action. (Hear.) but the object and purpose of it might be carried out. But Mr. GLADSTONE—l ol re tk m ., ember very well that the hon. the an d t time referred ,ro .iti t n o theis one lit t o e . - t t h l the t n h o i li r l d e Te lo . rd tio w g as of in hi. th o is w. dil b em ill m , o a r — a h ll e ow mu st 4 le o s f m th ed e Itom gent a i n en c m ath n e itoz ,,, s w t hi lus c h difficulty,h e ~ai s ia teh atin o cld h ,t.e h gd e ,:. l l:T . :th t uure , ne rc iiit w roo. as onf which stringency..- h ain h taTiora will n t e n .d o t i i n n si d e u t i , ngl so, h eie, t, however, hhe 01 tuck o ad vantage 1 st ate, si h t i h n a k t m bu n t ts on in e in e g uy pm to v n w i n it lith,,e.hcittihmtahle billof hwiistharigt,umzet o duce ftitl i , n i t o in t h a e li fi c rs . t e s l i a n ue , o; c hi lau s se ho w w ou th ld e h a i n ch es tit e e p re i i any authority ; and that exception would be so large, that prevent synodical action, and meet the object which it is it would swallow up the whole bill, and the clause would I said, on some hands, the promoters of the bill have in view. e ingr s7 dth, nd and third clauses i The law officers of the crows only refer to the assumption of titles by Roman catholic I Well, sir, may I ask what is to be the effect of the excision bishops in society. ("Hear," and a laugh.) He might be second e x pu nged, atht the first douse —this third clau clauses wai n ha a v o c p, h r olon e i e i h n oZol w t o -o u t l e a for hue t a he ls this being his opinion as to the bill, what he intended to do, have stated—the Attorney-General has stated most dis ria n d t i l c h w e e c w o u h l e d . w h e e l I answeredun ol understand ne e I of e ti . n th p e u t reading. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh) But why should with the effects which would have beenproduced had the he do so? First , because he thought legislation was slum second and third classes been allowed to remain (Hear ' lately necessary ; secondly, because the bill, bad as it was, h em ) I hope Ido not make y mistake 'as to would be a first step • and he would rather take the mini- the meaning of the Attorney-General. " (l - num offered than nothing . But he voted for it on another hon. member , in addressing te hote pro d uc ed a nal An aud mere important ground. That was that it was the ported by hill own authority g an opinion with u eehich s he sul con only opportunity afforded to those, who thought the bill soles himself as to the advantages which wouldresult from was nut what it ought to be to endeavour to introduce into this measure, as stated by the Attorney-General. lie i committee such amendments as would meet the lin effect , if not ' in words, tha t the first clause would ay e, occasion. (Loud cheerio.) If the noble lord was sincere in his .dude the second and third, whilst the wou notin- , second tend third ' view of the aggreseion, he ought to have come forward with clause would stand involved in the • I first. Laughter.) That a bill in which in explicit terms he should have denounced lis well • pretty we certainly by way of contradiction. But, as it the aggression as being opposed to the supremacy of the I were I suppose to mend matter, down the atx, my honourable and Queen, and have introduced clauses prohibiting all per- I Learned friend who has j o t ' sa t (Sir F. Thesiger) sons from acting under this brief or any other similar &a definit ion . comes in with a third meet under a penalty. (Hear, hear.) This was what the ;us that neither th • arc nor the other of the statements to noble lord should have done if he desired that his acts which I have allu ded i should agree with his words, and with anything Rhone of that the • ,nd cla w i lls right. (Laughter.) He tells ue that the public would not ix, satisfied. If they pro- but that the third u will (Contin ued notineicelin the first clause., I ceeded in • vacillating hesitating course he was satisfied " hear, hear.") 'Phis is an accura te i laughter, and partial statement they would entirely fail . If they touched this nettle dan- of the condition in which the ho an impartial Louse stands with regard to its ger timidly it would sting, but ifthey grasped it boldly it lega l illumivation on the • vital vote which it is about to give. would hurt them not. He rewarded this aggression as but ( Laughter and "hea r.") But air, again, the public suppose the first of a series of encroachments, against which they that this is a bill • were bound to make their stead. He was so sensible of fain the rights of the ' Queen • crown, and the independence the advantages of the light and liberty of the Reformation l of the nation. (Laughter, and " Hear, hear.") It is to won for us by the labour, the danger+, and the blood of our 1 maintain the r i g ht of the Queen's crown. Who has in ancestors, that,' he fur one would endeavour to transmit ended these rig hts . A foreign power. What has this those advantages unimpaired down to those who would Co reign rugn power done ? It has introduced a measure, it is succeed us. (Cheers.) , said, to impose penalties on her Majesty's subject+. Well, Sir J. GRAHAM begged to explain that the extract but supposing this . i s the case, does this hill contain any which he had read from Hansard as to what the Duke of thing to meet that ' th • > Does this bill contain any two coherent Wellington said in the debate in the House of Lords on the ideas, or is Bth of April, 1829, in reference to the Act of 1792, and fro mit i I wouldere arty eon havee principle capable of being deduced refere I a comparative respect for the bill i which was quoted from Reward, was erroneous in 110 far if it object of t were consistent, . even in regard to a false principle. Bet as it referred to the act of 1792. Ile had since referred to ' I n • tam that there the " Mirror of Parliament," and found that the act re- bill now furred to by the noble duke was the act of 1782 instead of ole s u bmitteds e measure is to r ep ress to this house* Theavowed ress foreign authority, s 1792. (Leuglito r.) Mr. GLADSTONE then rose. He said—l have listened titles. and in doing this you say you will prohibit foreign But, though you attempt to prohibit foreign titles ; as the house must have done, to the speech just delivered I ask you why you prohibit domestic titles , hy my hon. and learned friend, with gratitude for the value • There domestic ' • Mess' hear.) arc titles which might exist, but winch are ' able information it conveyed as to his views of the law of prohibited. This is not so remote a case ; for in the last the ease , and with that ad miration which I, in com mon session of parliament, or in the session before last, there with every hon. member present, must feel not only for was a petition presented in the House of Peers by Lord his great talents mid the varied ingenuity with which Brougham, in which certain gentlemen who denominated he states his opinions, hut for his character as a themselves English Episcopalians, prayed that the Ileum mud a c complished la , (Hoar, would grant theme piscopal gove - Intent. Now no episcopal 'be ' 711 eta", if the --sent government could -_ given to such parties, if the pre,. bill passed • for by this bill the exercise of such functions would be absolutely prohibited on the part of such indi viduals or bodies of Christians. In the letter of the nnhle lord (Lord J. Russell), the episcopal church in Scotland was nut referred to—the case of Scotland was omitted. Yon' have now introduced an exception, but I cannot accept that exception withgratitude.Althouglifnmibeingellen reeident in Scotland I entertain great friendship fur the Scotch bishops —although I respect them, and feel attached to them ; yet I have no desire that an exceptional system of civil or reli gious privilege or toleration should be created. I want to know why episcopal titles are to be prohibited, while terri torial titles arc to be tolerated ? We hear a great deal about territorial titles, but does this bill prohibit territorial titles? If all such titles were prohibited, I could understand what you mean. Some boo. gentlemen say that the bill defends the territorial rights of the crown, but how can it defend the territorial rights of the crown, if, while it prohibits the siesumption of episcopal titles, it does not prevent the tricts, as well as episcopal b odies. The Wesle y an,* divide li ti g o io n us of c t u e n rr im it' u m n ia it l y ti w til hl di v l id l e er t e he ar c e o ' u 4 i h it e r r y c i l n us tn es di o s- f of Edinburgh and Glasgow , and other p laces, and in Eng ta"isthheeuconrlpu. country into circuits. In Scotland you have the Bisho p s Eng land you have the presbyteries of London, and Birmingham. I want to know whether the titles of the bishops in Scot land are territorial ; and I ask, also, if the presbyteries are not also territorial in England ? The sole difference is, that the power of the bishop is diffused in the hands of the presbytery, for the title is strictly territorial. (Hear, hear.) If you tell me that the title of bishop is to be treated as territorial because it is com bined with temporal incidence, then I say there exists the same reason fur treating presbyteries as territorial, for in Scotland they are connected with many temporal interests, and form courts having jurisdiction over the people in vari ous matters. (Hear, hear.) This bill does not, I repeat, defend the territorial rights of the Queen, and while invited to discuss an anti-Runtish bill you are also invited to discuss an anti-episcopal bill. (Rear, hear.) I take the bill as its promoters interpret it. It is to prevent Romish aggression. Now, sir, looking at this measure strictly in the light in which I presume government desire it to be met— al a measure to prevent Romish ago:mission, the noble lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Palmerston) treated this bill as "amply an exten sion of the section of the act of 1820. Mk is not a simple extenxiem of the section of the net of 1829. The act of 182 the part of it which was referred to was this—it went on to prevcat the usurpation of certain existing titles, known to the law, and designated certain individuals hold ing important rights. It declared that the man—the Roman catholic bishop whooltecanie a claimant, or pretended to important rights, political privileges, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, could not be tolerated, because it was a matter of policy and order to defend these title-, from being usurped by others. But when you don't pretend that any confusion is to arise by the assumption of the titles proposed to be. taken under the papal brief, you bring the question simply assumedto issue as t o w as episcopal you ar titles,will Blow n. theseinter interfering to g s .. i o i h th o the rights of any one. It is fur you to prove, which you have laboured to do in vain, that the reecript of the Pope has a temporal character to justify your legislation. Don. as in giving a general expression to their sentiments in sgeponktignsoenn%ie.he'h' have ' d e e fe c ia ag o ' flh e in bill, h i n s r in opposition si l tro v n e to i rt i , regard to legislation on the subject. They have used argu ments which divide themselves into two classes—some of them go too far, and others fall miserably short of the mark. (Hear, hear.) When we hear hon. gentlemen point to Roman catholic countries, and speak of the de gradation whieh they say attends the prevalence of the Roman catholic religion', that is an arguinent which goes a great deal too tar, because nothing can be more incongruous than to hear it wild this country, and that country, and the other emintry, are reduced to the lowest state of degradation because they aro under Roman catholic sway, and then to denounce the im putation that you are going to do an •thing to prevent the spreadof the Roman catholic faith. Hear, hear.) I have protested against meeting the eat 'olio. religion thus ; first of all, because the measure is false in principle, and if not, it is ridiculous in extent. You must meet a spi ritual system by a spiritual system. You have of her arguments 1 admit, but they fall equally far short. You moist show that, not only are these titles founded ou a foreign authority, hut that they are temporal oithaos. Then you would be justified, but until you reach that point you have no justification whatever. Many gentlemen say they are not teitistied, it is necessary for Roman catholic purposes this introduction of a regular Roman catholic hierarchy. Well, I must con fess I do nut know why they should or why 1 should bo satisfied on that subject. It is no part of the duty of a Ro man catholic to satisfy me that his ecclesiastical arrange ments are reesonable and necessary'. If 1 understend anything of the doctrine of relig liberty, it im plies that in the matter of religious action parliament is not to intrude. The noble lord at the head of the government was the boldest in this matter, for the noble lord distinctly stated this, unless I mistook him,—l under stood him distinely to say that the appointment -I have put down the words—that the :ippointnient of bishops was 110 t a spiritual but a temporal a ff air. The noble lord adheres to that, I did not mistake him. Lord J. RUSSELL: 1 quoted the authority of Dr. Twins to that purpose. Mr. GLADSTONE: That is the opinion of an excellent man, but I should like to knew if the noble lord adopts his authority? What I say is this, that the episcopal office has been for a long series of years spiritual, and you arc nut justified in treating it as a civil matter when its civil incidences have been detached from it. What I have further to say is this, if the appointment of bishops per se is not u temporal but a spiritual act, why do you in terfere ? If, on the other huud, it is nut a spiritual but a temporal act, why do you except the Scotch bishops? I hope the government will get out of that dilemma. With regard to the interference of the synod of Thurles in education, it is not necessary fur me to go at this moment into the question whether that interference was right ur wrong. What Isay is this, thud if persons who have spiritual func tions interfere in temporal a ff airs, beyond the limits of their rights as citizens, because within these limits they had a right; but if they went beyond them, then you should repress them by law, but do not suspend them from their spiritual functions. But the Solicitor-Generul speaks of suspension from benefices. Why, the Roman catholic' aro not the only religious body who suspend from benefices. I apprehend that suspension is common in the free church of Scotland, and among dissenters in England. Why is that more temporal in those churches than in the Roman catholic church ? No doubt 1 grant that suspension from benefices may incidentally affect temporal interests, but there is 110 religious body in the world whose ecclesiastical concerns do uut incidentally and owaeleionally affect temporal interests. It is not enough for you to show that the Roman catholic body in that respect partake% of the qualities of every other ecclesiastical body. What you must show is this, that the Roman catholic body does something with regard to temporal affairs peculiar to itself. And I venture here to assert and to challenge con tradiction, that you have neither given proof, our have you ever offered proof, in regard to any of the de tails of ecclesiastical machinery, that there is an interference in temporal uffairs required in the recent arrangements of the Roman catholic church of any other kind then that which is necessarily inciolentul, and net more than is incidental, to the practices of all religious bodies w hate ver.llW hat we want to timid are proofs of a temporal cha racter in this rescript of the Pope ; and without such visors made good of a temporal character, distinct from that which incidentally attaches to any religion whatever, you have not a shadow of a ground, on the principle you yourselves lay ' duwn for the passing of this bill. V. but then there must be canon law. If it were canon law in the other sense, the annoeneement could hardly havoo created greater alarm, considering that we arc not explaining the bill, that the boldest lawyers have employed themselves to tell us what will be the sense, and what will he the effect, of that single clause that we are invited to pass into a law—l must confess that ail with great reluctance thut I enter into an examination of the precise position of the canon law, as it might stand either after or before this rescript. But there in abundant matter that lies on the surface, and more, us appears to me, than is suf§cient foor our consideration. But 1 will take this canon law as it was in the time of Boni face the Eighth and Ronoriue the Ninth. Does this bill shut it out ? Is there any declaration in this bill that the Roman catholic shall nut be governed by it? No such thing. You had a fond and distant hoopo that by your legislative labours you will indirectly, by shutting out synods, shut out the co. on law. But the Soli citor General has within a quarter of an hour distinctly disclaimed that the bill would have such an effect. But I will not stop short of the principle laid down by my right hon. friend the member for Ripon that if this canon law be ever so oppressive against the laity, however severe it may be in its provisions on the laity, however it may exalt the power of the clergy I lay down this princi ple, that that is their affair, and nut ours, and that there will be no religious freedom in this coun try, if parliament is to be invoked to interfere for the purpose of redressing the supposed or the red grievances of this or that class of any religious deuornina• tion. I cannot conceive anything more monstrous. and un reasonable than that gentlemen should claim for themselves what they call religious liberty—that is, claim a religious system fur themselves front Mormonism upwards, and then having formed such a system for themselves, and having chosen it of their own good will and pleasure, when they find themselves robbed and ill-treated they should come to parliament and request parliament to interfere. That protection which you offer them, not like other pro tected interests they repudiate, and they liett of you frothing more than that you would have the kindness to let them slime. (Hear, hear.) Under all ordinary circum stances the bishop cannot dismiss a diocesan bishop without bringing ham to trial, and in the same way when, under your diocesan bishop you organise your diocesan clergy, then them: dioreean clergy have important rights as against bishops. What is the present state oh the Co. ? Why, that the Pope has absolute mastery of the religious in terests of the Roman catholic. in Englund without stint or limit whatever. There is no right that they possess as bishops. Every priest holds his benefice subject to the ab solute will of the Pope of Rome. And I say if you want to deseribe the legal system under which the Roman catholic lives at the present moment, you cannot describe it better than in these words of Mediae° the Eighth, and llonorius the Ninth, and which frightened the hon. member fur Ox ford from his propriety : " I declare it is necessary to salvation to believe that even- neon is bound to be subject to the Pope." I confess, it wounds me as a member of the English church to sec that hierarchical organisation spreading over the 111 L