The Sun. — London, England, 1851-07-22 00:00:00

not only deo • know, if tber.„ s and if the,, part against )f the Crown w O M e had now s":y That 04 • e an answer 104 eneral. He thou ie Right Boa. r ; peaker had n° to the Hoes ; : B ar on Roth gcb, 'at resolutioa, the ques tion ee r,: u i ts , and it s oath of abjurs,,, • taken by the ing been done, endeavourict. his Jewish Pe, i n continued er, theY bead P c F. 1 the scorn what they did last year. The Noble Lord was sometimes rash, and displayed - that in inducing them to pass that resolution, the effect of which was to throw the measure back which he was desirous to advance. They said they were acting on a scrupulous acquiescence with the law. But were they always so anxious to do so? Did not the Noble Lord consider that the people of this country- would attach much blame to him, particularly when his own constituents consider that they are wronged by not havirg their due number of representatives? And also when the intelligent constituents of Greenwich are labouring under a similar disadvantage. He would ask, has not two branches of the Legislature approved of such a measure, he meant the Queen and this House?— (Cries of " Order, order.") Yes, be said that the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell), as First Minister of the Crown, bad always approved of the admis sion of members of the Jewish persuasion who had been fairly elected. But he regretted to say that a third branch Marred the efforts of the other branches. He also di4ap proved of the oaths taken by Members, for such oaths never tended to increase the allegiance of the people in their attachment to the Throne and their respect for the laws. He therefore hoped that the Noble Lord would, ere long, remove such useless and unnecessary oaths as those taken by Members of the House. —(Hear, hear.)Mr. NEWDE GATE—He thought that the House should look to the manner of the Jewish aggressien.—(Hear, hear.) Yes; did not Alderman Salomone arrogate to himself the right to occupy the seat he now holds? Can there be any order in this House when his very first act was a violation of order ? How could the Speaker protect the order of the House if such proceedings were connived at, or in the least sanctioned ?—(Hear, hear.) RMr. J. EVANS thought it unjust and injudicious that the ouse of Co mmons should set itself in opposition to two very borough of Gre enw i c h . Was i t not well known that the city of London has b e e n f or th e l ast f our years d epr i ve d o f one fourth of its representatives? And how long, he would ask, was such to be tolerated?—(Hear, hear.) Lie had to com plain of the inconsistency of the House of Commons in its decision relative to Baron Rothschild, while the same House admitted Mr. Pease, without taking any oath whatever. He entertained not the shadow of a doubt that the opinion of the Sol icitor -General was perfectly right when he said that such a mode adopted towards any Member—when it bad the force of binding the conscience of the individual, like the oath proposed by Alderman Salomons—would be quite sufficient. He admitted that there was a difference of Opin on between the Attorney and the Solicitor-General, and for that reason he thought that the difference should be ar b~ged in a cou r t o f l aw, an d not i n that House.—(Hear, r ' ) He also considered that a native Jew was as much Privileged to have a seat in the House as any other subject. Colonel THOMPSON must take the liberty to ask whe ther the framer of this oath of abjuration had anything else Y : t View than t o bi n d t h e consc i ences of all subjects to itilliarn 111. instead of James II.; but it could not be said that it was intended against the Jews, either then or no,,ve.—s(Hear, hear.) eArr. CROWDER said the real question the House was b--er"efd uPon to decide was, whether the Hon .urable Mem -or Greenwich had taken the oath of abjuration in terms of the statute. In deciding that question they must do so Li judges but he thought, fromithe manner in which this discussion'had been carried on, that they had not adhered l 'erY Strictly to that rule.—(Hear, hear.) He was sorry he ttha the l awyers in the House disagreed on the subject, but for one was of opinion that the Hon. Member for Green- Wich had not taken the oath of abjuration, as required by the Act of Parliament. —Olean ) He was, moreover, of opi nion that the Honourable Member for Abingdon had taken a ti ght view of the subject when he said that the words " on the t rue faith of a Christian " could not be omitted, except by. Act of Parliament. This was evidently the intenti on o f the Acts of Parliament passed upon the subject, and he did not see in the present ease how they could get over it. But there was, besides this, a decision of their own precisely in Writ, and how were they to get over that? It had been said that there was nothing in the precise language of the resolution of last session which could exclude the Honourable Member for Greenwich from taking his seat, but that reso lution was passed under exactly the same circumstances as ththose now under the consideration of the House, and was erefore app li ca b le to the case. He was not supporting the ath of abjuration as being reasonable at the present day, but he s a i d th i s, that they could not get it dispensed with, except they passed an Act of Parliament for the purpose of repealing it; and until that was done they must abide by it. Mr. MUNTZ had always voted in favour of the admission of Jews into Parliament, because when he saw them ad mitted into all municipal offices he did not see the consist ency in keeping them ou t o f P ar li ament. The resolution of last session could not stand as it was, unless they admitted t he Jews into Parliament; and therefore he would, as he bad done on all former occasions, give his vote in favour of the admission of the Jews. Mr. WAWN also supported the motion amid loud cries of Divide," amidst which Mr. J. A. SMITH rose and said that it seemed the House Was desirous of deciding on the subject; he was authorised to state, on behalf of the Honourable Member for Greenwich, that although he had, in virtue of what he considered his right, taken his seat in that House, he would not vote on the iiiitefrlesenL question, b e i ng one which was so personal to him- Ile, however, refrained from doing so, simply on that ground, and w i thout relinquishing any f the privileges which he p ossessed as a Member of that House.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member would, therefore, now that a di vision was to t a k e place, withdraw, protesting, at the same time, that he was still a Member of the House. Mr. Ald erman SALo3toNs then bowed to the Speaker,and withdrew amidst considerable laughter from the Opposition benches. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment 81 Against 229 The amendm Mority — ent aj was consequently lost. -148 Duri Sp eak n g Our abse nce f rom t h e ga ll ery, we un d erstan d t h e tile l na i er Put the resol u ti on p ro p ose d b y L or d J o h n R usse ll , drawY,gat the Hon. Member for G reenw i c h s h ou ld w ith- Hor e . m" e 'en the doors were opened we observed that the foi led " 3t nber for Greenwich was not in his place, and we Mr s, 7 ssS TEY addressing the House, amidst loud cries of bet:a' and other unmistakable symptoms of impatience. l e i e d t hey were there to try a solemn question—to hear or i nc e -23 of an important question, and not to decide rashly to d e o e s iderately, when the effect of that decision would be Jorive an Hon. blember of his seat. the be Salotnons here entered the H ouse , an d walked by of,c'ettoisterial benches. He was received with loud cries ci,e,e Withdraw, withdraw!" but he treated them with in in'ut rence, and continued proceeding towards his seat. The increased by the Hon. Member, contrary to the rules of the °llse L akinSpe a k'g up his position between r. Anstey and the WI, el'. This led to cries of 'Oder," and " Withdraw." eat a en. the Hon. Member discovered his mistake he quietly , set-e_b"rrt between the Master of the Rolls and Mr. M Cul f rhit• AeNSTEY was hanpy to find that the Hon. Member tnri Greenwich had returned of his place.—(oh, oh, and ze,,shaso!: " Withdraw.) He hought the Hon. Member the —g Yielding to extreme delicacy—(L . aughter)—before question was put. He thought . it was the duty of 9nestino. Gentleman to suppress all feeling on the present ef ° n , on which the fate of his seat was to be decided, for t he e House had the power to order him to withdraw, it had e i'etwer to unseat him, and to order a new writ . for . Gre oto n : p eten _ He should on the present question consider his c toler a ti los eY, and sit there and vote, and leave the question to 7- h o, whether by reason of intolerance, or worse feel _or he called concession to intolerance worse tha.norinty agai nee itself —but contributed to swell the ma j was that nst h int. The question before the House now A the Hon. Member he ordered to withdraw. He (Mr. ti i n te Y) had to ask the House, when they carried that mo wit'', Whether it was intended that the Hon. Member should wkhdrave from the House altogether, or only leave his seat? k e u ele the next question was put, namely, that for the Hon. Zilpet.ber'e contumacy in disobeying the orders of the at- t'' he be committed to the custody of the Sergeant tit eftle--tvhen that question, which Hon. Gentlemen oppo 1/eiready anticipated with cheers of frenzied delight, was 1114 ---it would be for some Hon. Member to move —indeed, en„the absence of a more qualified person he would himself b'N'e —that the Honourable Member be heard in person or ex counsel against that sentence —(Oh, oh.) It would be tee the house to consider to what part of the chamber they t he order the H onourable Member to withdraw. Even in ne present temper of the House he did hope that no gen w'lettan would refuse the Honourable Member for Green ich an opportunity of being heard. He (Mr. Anstey) 44 d move that th e H onourable Member be heard in place but if there we re any present who thought that in th e ' face of an order from the Speaker, directing him to Psithdraw, he should not address the House from his place, ..nrlle would ask, was it the intention that he should be heard e the place allotted to strangers ?—(oh, oh.) Then he ZeLed Honourable Gentlemen to point out any passage in Vt" Lie? Act of Parliament that justified them in adopting so reme a course. There was nothing in any Act of Par ,anient that did not entitle the Honourable Member to be rip e his place. The question before the House was not ele for decision, and he thought the safest course for the b Noble Lord at the head of the Government to adopt would to to move for a Select Committee, and refer the question thedc)ei consideration of that tribunal before it was further je eme t !d , It was not too much to ask the House to post- Vier its It until next session, as the Noble Lord the tp.;ll,ll.3sestahlinister of thelCrow Crown, had asked the House to post --e decision of Baron Rothschild's case from , the . last to Sege eee ght sa . op T po h r e ta H n o it n y our o a f bl a e pp M e e a m lio b g er t f o or Greenwich only o la n w ly , they refused, without hearing 4.,eig 'without information and without him—without h T ea h r ; leonourable Memb e a djourned, r Concluded by moving tha e t x t n . h a e se debate be its that justice could not otherwise . b . e done. Which J. RUSSELL could not agree to that proposition, for ier!'eeh indeed no reasons had been given.—(Hear, hear ) .lth respect to the motion before the House, he thought the the Hon' ought to come to a decision upon that question, whe w: stiboa. Gentleman should withdraw.—( Hear. hear.) . It Ilimil e " r is ( Lord J. Russell's) intention to make a motion et in terms to the resolution passed last year in the case vaLtSron Rothschild ; but he did no t w i sh that the House come to any immediate decision upon that question, c fe s ue sho u ld b e ready to take that motion next day, leaving fiel for gentlemen to consid er w h at course they might think Ihotci'oad°PL—(Hear, hea r .) Wi t h respect to the immediate n. the House was in a s t ate to d ec i de upon that. The _to Gent leman said th a t the llon. Member for G reenw i ch s ho uld not w i t h draw if the House cams to a resolution that te asshould ; the only precedent he (Lord J. Russell) found gwith regard to Sir William Wyndham. It appeared by _e,4oUr.nals that there being words of his in the House found f l _ L ' ; 't with, he was ordered to withdraw, which he refused to Atljt_nd a motion being made, and the question put, "that ety• Wyndham do now withdraw," the House divided : w4Bs, 206 ; noes, 127. The entry then was—" So it 0 resolved in the affirmative, and he withdrew acisrdinglY•"—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord John Rus i__ce conceived that that was only paving a proper re eteuta o the House.—(Hear, hear.) Sir W. Wyndham was p:.doubted Member of the House, and had spoken in his aek,eh declined to withdraw upon the order of the Wi thdre but upon the reeolut on of the House he immediately Hear.) Of course, if the Hon. Member for Greee„,,7l7C . did not pay that respect . to the House other mea be taken.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") But the e r e ( B Q L i r es Russell) should hope that when the authority of teseeePeaker had been affirmed by a resolution of the House le w ould be no h es i tat i on in withd rawing.(H. Lear rireee HALL was understood to recommend the ear) n an adieu d Member (Mr. Anstey) t o w i t h draw his motion for d de r ,AZ e n ment, and l e t t h e House come to some decision. th_ r a few words from M r . WAW N, who spoke from un- Ty, and amidst expressions of impatience, HedOUSE said he thought the Hon. Member for k,9r_n'awich would weaken his case if he did not rise in his .ble;s.ndt(Astaltaeu,ghho.wever shortly, the course he meant to ) He had claimed the right to sit and right to vote, but ho had not claimed his right to speak bi.owe House. —(Hear, hear.) What he should say was for that n he ierisideration—(A. la ugh)poesibly he might say lianould withdraw in deference to the expressed opinion of th e House. —(Her, hear.) //o,‘.Alderman SALOMONS, who was sitting in the th e "„; pon the front bench on the Ministerial side, below Wito. 4 2 : V i raY, immediately rose ; he was at first received 414 " Withdraw y from the Opposition benches, 949171104 lb§ 1 0 114 glum with which THE he was supported. He sp , ke, firmly and deliberately, as follows I should not have presumed to address you, 'ir, and this House, in the peculiar position in which I am placed, had it not been that I have been so forcibly ap pealed to by the Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. —(Hear, hear.) I hope some allowance will be made for the novelty of my position, and for the responsibility that I feel in the unusual course which I have judged it right to adopt—(Hear, hear)—but I beg to assure you, Sir, and this House, that it is far from my desire to do anything that may appear contumacious or presumptuous.—(Hear, hear.) Returned, as I have been, by a large constituency, and under no disability, and believing that I have fulfilled all the requirements of the law, I thought I should not be doing justice to my own position as an Englishman or a gentleman, did I not adopt that course which I believed to be right and proper, and appear on this fieor—(Hear, hear) —not meaning any disrespect to you, Sir, or to this House—(Hear, hear)—but in defence of my own rights and privileges, and of the rights and privileges of the constituents who have sent me here. ( Hear.) Having said this, I beg to state to you, Sir, that whatever be the decision of this House, I shall abide by it, provided there be just sufficient force used to make me feel that lam acting under coercion. Ish all not now further intrude myself upon the House, except to say!that I trust and hope that, in the doubtful state of the law, such as it has been described to be by the eminent lawyers who ad dressed you, no severe measures will be adopted towards me and my constituents, without giving me the fairest opportu- nity of addressing the House, and stating before the House and before the country what I believe to be my rights and the rights of my constituents.—( Hear, hear. I believe the House never will refuse what no Court ever refuses to the meanest subject in the realm, bat will hear me before its final decision is pronounced.—( Much cheering.) Mr. BRIGHT thought the Noble Lord must feel that the case presented itself in a less clear shape than it did at first, and that the House should not further that night, after two or three divisions, and under some excitement, commit itself to any course by any further resolution. It would be as well for the House to review the proceedings, and consider what must be the inevitable termination of the matter— ( Hear) — and for the Noble Lord to reconsult the law officers of the Crown, and reconsider the question.—(Hear, hear.) The judicious and temperate address of the Hon. Member— (Hear, hear)—made this claim all the stronger. Sir D. L. EVANS supported this appeal. He had ob served, and with no surprise, the more sober countenances assumed by gentlemen opposite since they had heard what had been addressed to the House in the course of the debate. It was to be regretted that the other branch of the Legisla ture had set itself against the opinions of great constituencies. Let not this House follow that course.—(Hear, hear.) The termination of this contest could not be long delayed. The country would sympathize with the Hon. Gentleman, and acknowledge that it was he who was contending for the just rights of the people, and the House that was disregarding them.— (Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the Hon. Member for Greenwich had spoken so temperately upon this occasion (Hear, hear)—that he regretted if he was not able to comply with any request which might seem favourable to his being fully heard.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the question itself, he had stated that he proposed to postpone the consideration of it till the next day. If the House should think—he confessed he ( Lord J. Russell) did not—that the law was at all favourable to him, and that he ought to take his seat, they would come to a resolutiou upon it, and then the Hon. Member would be fully entitled to come into the House and take his seat. But he must own that, after the Speaker had ordered a Member to withdraw, and had appealed to the House whether or no they would support his authority— (Hear, bear)—he really did not see how be could possibly consent to adjourn the debate.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that the House must decide upon this matter (Hear, hear )—leaving comple ely untouched the question whether they should next day come to a resolution conformable to the case of Baron Rothschild, or whether they should think fit to reverse that decision. Mr. B. OSBORNE would be the last man to do arirthin , b contrary to the respect due to the Sp ea k er, b ut ther e were rights superior to his, and injustice must not be committed be cause he had pronounced that a gentleman was to withdraw. —(Oh, oh, and Hear, hear.) The case of Sir W. Wyndham was not very similar. This was nut a mere question about words. The Hon. Memb er wou ld do well not to leave his seat till taken into custody. However aver , e the House might be to him, there was a power out of the House which would compel them to rescind their resolutions—( Hear, hear)—and bring Noble Lords elsewhere to their senses.—(Hear, hear.) The House then divided on the question of adjournment, when there appeared-- For the adjournment ... •-• 75 Against it 237 Majority The House then divided on the main question, that Mr. Salomons be ordered to withdraw. The numbers were—. For the motion ••• 231 Against it ... -• ••• 81 Majority ... •-•—•• 150 The SPEAKER then informed Mr. Salomons of the de• cision of the House, and stated that Mr. r Salomons, under the circumstances, would see the necessity for h:s with drawal. Mr. SaLostoss not having withdrawn, The SPEAKER directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove him. The SERGEANT advanced to Mr. Salomons and tapped him on the shoulder, when Mr. Salomons stood up, and having said that he yielded, was interrupted by loud cries of " Order." He then retired beyond the bar with the Sergeant. Mr. ANSTEY asked whether the Hon. Member for Greenwich could remain in the,place appropriated to peers? The SPEAKER replied that the Hon. Member might take his seat where Hon. Gentlemen usually took their seats be fore taking the oaths. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having moved that the Speaker do leave the chair on the House going into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. BRIGHT said that some misapprehension existed with respect to the motion which the Noble Lord had inti mated his intention of proposing to-morrow. He had been supposed by Hon. Members to say that he would propose some other resolution than the resolution adopted last year in the case of the Hon. Member for the city of London. It was desirable to know what was the resolution to be pro posed by the Noble Lord. Lord J. RUSSELL stated that the resolution would be similar to that agreed to last year—namely, " That David Salomons, Eq., is not entitled to sit or vote in this House until he shall take the oath of abjuration in the form ap pointed by law."—(Hear, hear.) It being understood that Mr Salomons desired to address the House with respect to his right to sit, he (Lord J. Russell) would move " that Mr. Salomons be heard, in the same way as Mr. O'Connell, at the bar of the House." In vply to Lord D. STUART, Lord J. RUSSELL stated that he should propose his reso lution at 5 o'clock. Mr. BRIGHT remarked, that if what the Noble Lord proposed were all he intended to do, the House would be where they were. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. THESIGER intimated that he would not propose the resolution he had stated his intention of moving, but agree to the resolution of the Noble Lord. Mr. OSBORNE asked whether—Mr. Salomons having taken his seat, voted three time, and spoken—the Noble Lord would now prosecute him?—(Laughter ) Lord J RUSSELL thought that if the Hon. Member for Greenwich wished to be prosecuted, he would be able to find some person who would prosecute him.— (Cheers.) Mr. ANSTEY wished to ask the Noble Lord if the Hon. Member for Greenwich te-mo-row, on being called upon to make his election to be heard or not, preferred to be heard in a court of justice, whether the Noble Lord would then consider the propriety.—[The concluding words were lost in cries of " oh."] The SPEAKER having put the question that he do now leave the chair, Mr. ANSTEY said, he objected to the Speaker's leaving the chair. He objected to any public business being entered on, or any supplies being granted, till this great question of Parliamentary privilege was settled. After a few words from Lord D. STUART and Mr. DisisEt.s, with reference to the interference of the discussion to-morrow night on the resolution of the s.oble Lord with other business on the paper, The House went into Committee of Ways and Means, when resolutions appropriating various sums to her Majesty's ser vices were agreed to. The House then resumed. On the third reading of the Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill, Mr. MOFFATT moved the addition of a clause, reserving the benefits of moneys permanently invested to the ports where they Lad been raised. Mr. LABOUCHERE opposed the clause, which, After a few words from Mr Rice, Sir G. Pechell, Mr. Cur tis, and Mr. Wawn, was withdrawn. The Commons Enclosure (No. 2) Bill, was read a second time. On the motion for going into Committee on the General Board of Health Bill, Sir J. WALMSLEY opposed the motion, on the ground that Yarmouth had been improperly included under the Bill. After some observations from Mr. RUM BOLD, Lord SEYMOUR justified including Yarmouth within the provisions of the Bill, for the sake of its health. The House then divided, when there appeared— For going into Committee ••• Against ••• Majority .. The Bill then went through Committee. INCOME AND PROPERTY-TAX. The report of the Committee was brought up and read. — Ordered to lie on the table, and be printed. INVERNESS BRIDGE (ADVANCES). This Bill was considered in Committee, and the following resolution proposed :—" That the Commissioners of her Ma jtehset ystal Treasury'auof to ,70 b 0 e 1. out authorised of thetocoandsvoalnt Consolidated e b d y Fwuanyd of o floan, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, towards de fraying the expense n r e i s d s g . , approaches ßesuiutjo n d etno o b f e eraeting and constructing the new b works report o e v d er th t is he d riv . er . Nese at Inver- The Conveyance o f Mails- by Railway a s y ßill went through House ittee. went i nto Committee on the Veterinary Sur geons o Exemption n I B E moved Bill , that th e Chairman l. Lhould report but almost im me di ate l y , C Ti‘ m ih m re . BOUVERIE progress. Mr. NEWDEGATE said a few words in favour of the Bill. clude Mr. HENLEY the measure. objected to the principl e of exemptions in- The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For reporting prog ress 21 Against ••• 13 Majority ••• ••• The House resumed, and the other orders of — day were disposed of. Mr. LABOUCHERE obtained leave and brought in a Bill to repeal the Act for the Appointment of Commissioners of Railways. The House adjourned at a quarter to Two o'clock till to morrow at Twelve. ... 92 ... 12 -80 The O'GonmAx Mmiom paired in favour of the admission of Mr. Salomons with Lord BROOKE, against. Mr. GODDARD paired against the admission of Mr. Salo mons, with Mr. BUNBERY, in favour. Mr. BREMRIDGE paired against Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE'S amendment with Mr. WAKLEY, for. Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL paired in favour of Mr. OS BORNE'S amendment with Mr. REProw, against. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 21. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Fin o'clock. PETITIONS. Lord CAMPBELL presented — t; petition from some place in Somersetshire in favour of the Copyhold En franchisement Bill. The Earl of MALMESBURY presented, on the part of his Noble Friend the Earl of Derby, who was too ill to attend their Lordships' House, several petitions i❑ favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, ma n y o f w hi c h prayed that it might be made more stringent. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions from places in Ireland against the Bill. Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented several petitions in Lwow. of the Bill. SUN, JULY T 1 7 , " LONDON, The Earl of GLENG ALL presented several petitions to a similar purport. The Earl of ST. GERMANS presented a petition from Waterford against the Bill. The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented several petitions from places in Scotland in favour of the Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the holders of church leases in the county of Durham praying that their interests might be set•ured i❑ the Bill on church leases before their Lordship.' House. TURNPIKE ACTS ARRANGEMENT BILL. The House resolved itself into Committee o❑ this Bill. The Earl of LANESBOROUGH proposed a clause prohibiting the use of carts drawn by dogs. The Earl of MALMESBURY said that many persons earned their living by means of these carts drawn by dogs. and he should oppose the motion. After a short conversation, their Lordships divided, when there appeared— Contents Non• Contents ... 27 ... 56 - _ Majority against the clause ~. —29 The clause was consequently lost. The Bill then passed through Committee. ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose to move the second reading of this Bill. He must in the outset confess that it was to him a most painful duty to dis charge to have to move the second reading of this Bill. He had for 47 years been a strenuous advocate of the claims of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and had exerted himself in the House and out of the House to procure the acknowledgment of those claims, and it was therefore most painful to him to feel that his duty compelled him to adopt a course which might be misrepresented into an attempt to deprive of their rights his Roman Catholic fellow •subjects. It was, however, some consolation to him to know that this Bill did not interfere with the practice of religion, or with the civil liberties of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. It was occasioned solely by—it was meant solely to meet—an unjust aggression on the part of a foreign Power. It was also a consolation to him, that in the remarks he should have to make, it would be no part of his duty to enter into any consideration of a doctrinal character, referring to the roman Cathlic religion, nor to propose anything for their adoption tending to impose restrictions upon the exercise of that religion, which they s - ere all of opinion ought to be placed under the protection of those principles of religious liberty which he was in no degree prepared to surrender. He should therefore state to them, in the first instance, the reasons for introducing some legislative enactment to guard against what no one would doubt had assumed the appear• once of an aggression on the part of a foreign power; and next he should have to prove that in a religious point of view this measure imposed no new restrictions. If he did not prove both these positions—of the necessity of the mea sure, and that it did not interfere with the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion—then let them reject the Bill. What he should have to state in support of the first of these provisions would be short, as the fact was familiar to their Lordships that, within some few months past, a rescript or other document had appeared, sanctioned by the Pope of Rome, assuming to himself, in distinct and unqualified terms, the right of conferring territorial titles in this country. Now, the question arose whether that assumption was a matter of importance or not. In his opinion titles of all descriptions, or in any form, were things of real importance, things of substance, things which exerted a material effect, first on the imaginations of men, and then on their actions.—(Hear, hear.) Ho knew that all the wisest men of this country had always attached ea importance to thesettitlesas used and enjoyed; but i laiey did so as regarded titles of a merely profane nature, how much more would they do so in the case of ecclesiastical titles, which a foreign power said w as f or i ts interest to dispose of by assumption, and assumption only. He had always attached great importance to, and felt that it was a wise proceeding on the part of the Government of this country, and the Foreign Department especially, that they so steadily, and sometimes so stiffly refused to permit the use of foreign titles, and foreign decorations by subjects of this country, except on very rare occasions, and under very rare circumstances. —(Hear, hear.) They refused to do that, because they felt, as the fountain of honour, the Crown should remain untouched. And Parliament itself, which had at different times, with caution no d ou b t, interfered, more or les s , with the prerogatives of the Crown in other cases, in other duties, and in other privileges belonging to it, had constantly observed the most entire forbearance, and had never presumed to suggest to the Crown, or to interfere with the Crown, in that which it felt to be its first and exclusive prerogative, the right of de termining who should bear and who should use distinctions of this nature. The consideration of this subject reminded him of a somewhat homely saying of one of the wisest of our sovereigns, Queen Elizabeth. When it was urged upon her to permit the temporary absence of a Noble Lord, a Mem ber of that House, in order that he might wear certain orders, and bear certain distinctions about to be conferred upon him by a foreign power, she said, "No she never chose her sheep to be tarred by other shepherds."— (Laughter.) He wished now to observe, that we ourselves were as earnest in our desire to recognise in the fullest de gree that attention to the rights and independence of other countries, which we now claimed from this particular power, as men did from every other. For recently, and in our own times, we had had an opportunity of evinciug their desire to concede to foreign powers this right which we now claimed for ourselves. We had appointed a Bishop of Gibraltar and a Bishop of Jerusalem, but we had not appointed them in the same' manner and in the same mode as the Pope had recently appointed his bishops in this country. We had only desired to give the Christians in that part of the world the benefits of episcopal superintendence, but did not take the step without reference to the will of the people themselves. They did not mean to deny the same thing to the Roman Catholics, and though he wished to see it secured to them, if they thought it important to the exercise of their religion, was he com pelled on that account formally to recognise the usurped authority to which he had alluded? Now, ho knew that there were standers-by of our own creed, who, admitting the offensive character of the proceeding of the Court of Rome, and the impropriety of the terms which had been employed, neVerthele.q, were willing to do nothing on this subject. There were standers.by, who saw that public feeling had been strongly, he would not say unnaturally excited, but who said, nevertheless, Who knew that it would not subside ? i,et them wait." Why, he maintained that the surest way to maintain alive a system of irritation in this country, and on that subject, would be to show, in this country, that Par liament was determined to do nothing in reference to it.— ( Hear.) Nothing, in his opinion, could be so likely to invite further aggression than to show that they were not prepared to make a stand upon that point. He, therefore, thought he had said enough to show their Lordships that this was not an occasion on which it was possible, consistently with respect for the Crown or the feelings of the people, for Par liament to remain silent, acquiescing in everything and op p)sing nothing, but tacitly sanctioning a course so distinctly marked and so openly avowed. There remained for him now to say, that the Catholic religion, within its proper sense and i.s legitimate objects, would in no degree be impeded or em barrassei by the operation of this Bill. And here he might at once say that he would be justified in throwing the onus probandi on those who were interested in maintaining the contrary, and in calling upon them to point out any circum stance in which a practical obstacle would be placed in the way of the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in this country. He was not speaking of that interference which he held to be unlawful - not unlawful under this Bill, but contrary to the Constitution of the country, as more stringently developed in Catholic times than at pre sent. He referred to the proceedings in Lalor's case, and their Lordships would find in the report of the law officers of the Crown, that they stated the reasons which in duced them to resort to the particular line of proceeding which they adopted. These reasons were curious, and they were also full of sense, meaning, and instruction. They said that they preferred not to frame the indictment under the statute of Elizabeth, that all might be informed who were interested in the matter, but there were laws passed before the time of Henry the Eighth, as sharp almost as those recently passed in Protestant times, for the Commons of England had at all times been sensible of the importance of upholding the dignity and prerogatives of the Crown, and had obliged it to defend them. He said, there ore, that these laws, only partially repealed by the Catholic Emancipation Act, were to some extent still in force. The Emancipation Act, which granted im mense privileges and advantages to the Roman Catholics, did, nevertheless, carefully reserve many points to the Crown, and one of them especially was the right to appoint bishops to particular sees. Thus bishops being prohibited from taking any right under the Court of Rome, all the functions and duties of the Roman Catholic priesthood in this country, had nevertheless, been fully and satisfac torily performed, and that being so, it was only in ac cordance with the expectations of the Roman Catholics themselves, who, at the time the Act was passed, expressed a declaration of their entire concurrence in its objects, together with unbounded gratitude for a measure conferring such privileges upoa them; it was in accordance with those expectations that this legislation was now com menced. It was too late, therefore, now to tell them, when bishops had only exercised their authority in Ireland under that Act, that an impediment was being thrown in the way of ordination or of marriage, or of those sacred acts deriving their validity from the Church, and which might be fearlessly exercised without endangering the independence of the Crown. It would be an instructive work if their Lord ships would look to that evidence, so bold and so clear, which he remembered to have heard given before a Committee of their Lordships' House, by the Rev. Dr. Doyle. Their Lordships would there find a careful enumeration of the duties of Roman Catholic clergymen, and they would find no single act of them which had not since been performed, which might not be performed now, and which would not be performed without hindrance after this Bill had passed into a law, and when this subject came to be stripped of the pre judice with which it had pleased certain parties to invest it. He should be sorry, indeed, and be prepared to sacrifice much, and to run great risks, rather than disturb the religious opinions of a large portion of the community.—(Hear, hear.) But because he felt that there would be no such disturbance, and not only that, but that there was no such intention, or no such accidental result to be apprehended, that he ven tured to recommend this Bill for their Lorhships' approval. It he were asked whether he considered this Bill essen tial to the preservation of the Protestant religion in Eng land,Forh he w e a s s h oounled of answer those who th unhesitatinglyoug t t h t e h that Protestant he did e rel t. i gion gion did not rest for its support on Acts of Parliament, or by enactments of •any kind. And he was one, likewise, of those whowas e aswith the State, thought that it and as wa was with the well describedeProtesta Protestant religion byeligion asa great lawyer and poet :—" What constitutes a state? Not lofty battlements, nor laboured mounds, high walls, or infested gates. No. Man—high-minded man ! " He be lieved that its real security depended on the sincerity, the virtue, and the conduct of those who guided it. But because he believed it to be independent of accident in this .re spect, so long as those virtues were preserved, he was not the less of opinion that it was inconsistent in the country and in Parliament to show and to proclaim its ad herence to those opinions, and its determination to support the Crown in its privileges, connected, as those privileges were, both with the State, and with religion. And he thought it was a duty which they owed to their Sovereign, and to the people of this country, secure as they might think themselves, and secure as they undoubtedly were in the conscientious rectitude of their religious principles, to stamp those principles so connected with the law of the country with their approbation, and to recognise by this declaratory enactment what prerogatives belonged to the Crown in connexion with religion, and what prerogatives they had determined should always belong to it. The Noble Marquis concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time. The Earl of ABERDEEN said it had always been his opi nion that the great cause of Catholic relief was carried in op position to the wishes of a numerical majority of the people of this country. That was his opinion at the time, and it had been confirmed since by the d emonstra ti on he had re cently witnessed, and by the excitement that had taken place. That excitement bad been very general, as the Noble Marquis had said; the people of this country had shown a great dstgree of feeling en. the subject, and the manor br Ojai it but - NM kept up, ba~d tendid to keep 77 4 Y ,~ TUESDAY EVENING, up the vigour of the demonstration. As far as this had been a demonstration of sound Protestant feeling, he en tirely rejoiced and concurred in it. Ho thought it highly satisfactory to witness it, and he thought it of infinitely greater importance, and of infinitely greater value to the preservation of the Protestant religion against aggression, than such a wretched piece of legislation as this. —(Hear, hear.) In this, however, legislation was seen to have degenerated, as in too many other instances it had, into a mere "No Popery" cry, and a blind hatred of the Roman Catholic religion, with which thoughtless prejudices he had no sympathy. Their Lordships would recollect that shortly before the Revolution an excitement similar to this prevailed for a considerable time—to use the words of Macaulay, " the capital and the whole country at that time went mad with hatred of the Pope, immediately upon the discovery of the Popish plot." Their Lordships would recollect that, though that excitement was as ephemeral as the present, the country in a short time became thoroughly ashamed of the delusion under which it had laboured. When, therefore, he Voiced on the excitement that had recently been manifested, lee thought of that which prevailed at the time of the Popish plot, and was com forted. —(Hear, hear.) Now, the course which the Noble Marquis opposite recommended the House to take was alien to the course which he had pursued through a long series of years. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) had, though differing from him on most subjects, always supported him in those efforts which he made on behalf of religious liberty. The Noble Marquis, he was sure, was the last person in the world knowingly to sueport or countenance anything which would savour of persecution or harshness. There were those who still thought of persecution, and the stake, and the scaffold, but if they only considered the difference of the times, a measure which then would have been regarded as liberal, and even indulgent, would now have the character of a very scanty measure of toleration. In dealing with religious sec taries, there was no middle course between a persecution that exterminated, and a toleration that satisfied, the weaker. They had for 00 long years done their utmost to exterminate all Catholicity from this country, and they had failed. They had adopted a new system, and for the last twenty years they had made progress in extending the prin ciples of that toleration which they adopted when it was ascertained that extermination was impossible. This Bill now dealt with a matter purely spiritual; for the Noble Marquis would not deny that the nomination of a bishop was an act purely spiritual. If they denied to a Church its regular government, they no longer tolerated that Church.— (Hear, hear.) Did they mean, as this Bill would do, did they mean to refuse to the Roman Catholic people of this country the government of their Church by the regularly ordained bishops?--(Hear, hear.) If so, he said they did not tolerate that Church.--(Hear, hear.) Could they deny, either, that an episcopal form of government was given to the Catholic Church by bishops that it did aot enjoy under its vicars apos tolic? He would now refer to the statement of a Noble and Learned Lord when he moved the repeal of a mass of odious and disgraceful statutes, which still disgraced she statute book. In moving the repeal of those enactments, and especially the 13th of Elizabeth, which prohibited communications with Rome, he said that the denial of communications with Rome for that purpose was a denial of the want of bishops in the Catholic Church. If they prohibited communications with Rome for that purpose, of course they refused to tolerate the Catholic religion. No Roman Catholic bishop could be collated without the au thority of a bull from the Pope of Rome, and many of the observances of that Church required the same sanction. He was, therefore, justified in inferring that the Roman Catholics were allowed a communication with Rome for this purpose, which, by this Bill, they proposed to take away. To suppose any episcopal Church without bishops was an absurdity— to suppose Roman Catholic bishops without the authority of the Pope. was another absurdity. Provided their appointment infringed on no existing rights—infringed, he repeated, on no existing rights—the State, he apprehended, could not interfere. This was a question of principle. They could not suppose an episcopal Church to exist without those rights and privileges which they would deny them. Their Lordships maintained the apostolic succession of bishops. But what would they think if that assumption was so thwarted as to prevent their adherence to that principle in the Church of England? He asked no more for the Roman Catholic episcopacy than the State allowed for the internal government of every other dissenting Church. Hi s first great objection to the Bill was, that it was mainly at variance with the true interpretation of the Catholic Relief Act. By the 24th section of that Act, it was enacted that any party who should assume the titles of any bishopric or deanery in England or Ireland, should forfeit a penalty of 1001. The fair construction of that was that the assumption of titles not possessed by the bishops was not forbidden. That was a penal clause, and they were bound to construe it strictly, and not extend it to that which was not expressed. He was a member of the Cabinet who drew that Act, and he bad been asked a hundred times why the Roman Catholics had not bishops in England as in Ire land, but it had never occurred to him to say that it was be cause it was illegal. But he had another reason. The Act enacted that no person should assume titles in England or Ireland. No mention was made of Scotland. And why, because there were no bishops recognised by the law in Scotland. The Act itself was demonstrative of the intentions of its framers, because it would have been just as easy to prohibit bishops in Great Britain, as in England and Ireland merely. That was his first objection. It was a breach of freedom, and a violation of the rights recognised by the Relief Act. He would not be a party to violate the privileges which he be lieved to be intended to be accorded by that Bill. But what was the act that had been done? What was the head and front of the offending ?. Was it not merely the convert ing vicars apostolic into bishops in ordinary ? He said it was an act of regular administration on the part of the Church of Rome. The Pope had a perfect right to con vert vicars apostolic into bishops in ordinary. It was the substitution of a regular system for a system that was ir regular and exceptional. In what was a bishop different from a vicar apostolic? Was there the slightest difference whatever except for the internal government of the Roman Catholic Church ? They must describe the man somehow. The Noble Marquis talked of territorial titles as if it con veyed any rights or possessions. The idea was absurd. There was nothing established in opposition to the Queen. There was nothing established that was in opposition to and not recognised by law. The hierarchy was constituted for the purposes of their own internal government, and it had no existence except in words, and could not operate in any degree except upon those submittilg to it.—(Hear, hear.) This, it was said, was the beginning of a despotic govern ment. But what was the fact? So long ago as the Go vernment of Mr. Pitt the change from vicars apostolic to bishops in ordinary was desired. tut it was not confined to Mr. Pitt ; Sir J. Throgmorton and other eminent parsons also wished for this change. After that, was this rescript of the Pope, conceding this desired change, a gross invasion of the rights of the Sovereign of this county? Should it be con. sidered as such? Towards us there was no change. To wards themselves only was there any change, and it was in their favour, for the Pope had somewhat divested himself of his power. The vicars apostolic were his mere deputies and agents, and removable at pleasure; but he could only remove bishops in ordinary for canonical offences, and they were, consequently, much more independent. But the Noble Marquis had discovered that this act was illegal by an ancient law. They had for this purpose revived a statute which had slept for 2 0 years, and which, during that period, so far as its practical application was con cerned was unknown. The statute of prmmunire had no application to the late rescript of the Pope. It was his in terference with temporalities that induced the passing of that statute, and to remove the grievance protested against by the Commons, in the time of Ricbard 11. It had, th.re fore, no application to the case now under discussion. By this Act, every bishop appointed by the Church of Rome would be an unlawful act. That would lead to most de plorable consequences; marriages, ordinations, and other spiritual acts, would, as a consequence, be rendered unlawful. He could not even conceive the consequences which must result from so deplorable and tyrannical an act. He would next come to consider the violation as was alleged of the supremacy of the Crown. It had been said that the Crown was in peril, and they were called to the rescue, but he did not believe there was any danger. He wanted to know how this supremacy of the Crown had been in vaded. In the address presented to the Queen by the bishops of the Established Church various modes had been adopted to describe the Papal aggression. First the address to the Queen said it was an unparalleled insult offered to the Queen, and to the Church of which her Majesty was the head. That, however, was altered, and after a little reflection the Right Reverend Bishops fell back upon safe grounds—they fell back on the 37th article of the Church, which they had all signed, and which meant something, although it could not be exactly ascertained what it was.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The Queen was addressed as the head of the establishment in this realm, whether ecclesiastical or civil; but the exact limit of that supremacy was not defined. Now he would re mind their Lordships that when the Noble Lord at the head of the Government sent up a Bill in '49 to introduce the Jews into Parliament, that Bill went to repeal the oath of supremacy. If, then, sup remacy was a matter or so mu c h importance, it was rather disrespectful to bring in a Bill to abolish that supremacy.—(Hear, hear.) In Scotland there was no recognition of the Queen's ecclesiastical authority, and when they had seen that the people who deny her eccle siastical supremacy were among the most devoted and the most loyal of her subjects—when they saw that the people of Scotland of all denominations utterly rejected that supre macy, they should not so quarrel with the act of the Pope.— (Hear, hear.) They must not forget that prelacy was abolished in Scotland, and that the laws against it were more severe than the laws against Catholics. But they were told, also, that the prerogative was invaded by the late act of the Pope. But how, he asked was that ? If the Pope nominated bishops to sit in that House. or did anything to interfere with the prerogrative of the Queen, that would be different.—(Hear, hear.) But they ignored the existence of the Catholic bishops, and practically there was therefore no interference with the Queen's prerogative. They had agreed to give full and ample toleration to every de scription of her Majesty's subjects, and they did that know ing that a Roman Catholic bishop could n ti o e t a b r, e n h a e m ar e .) d, ex ceptHe by the authority of the Pope.--( must say, that to complain of the act of the Pope was to complain of his existence, because the ap p o f fice. (Hear, of the bishops was inherent i n hi s hear.) Those who were at all accustomed to the a ppointments were hear. Romish Church, knew that there was Thllenagr,parhteicanr.l,l; rm a s ct use c d om i p n la m in a e k d in o g f.— th ( e Cr a i p es p T in he tia te e used en all such occasions, and to say that they meant any insult to this country was preposterous.—_(ear If there was really offence in the act of the Pope, it was one which should have been proceeded against, diplomatically or otherwise. He knew it would be said that her Majesty's Government would be precluded from taking that course by the Bill of '4S, which was passed for the purpose of enabling this country to enter into diplomatic relations with Rome, and in which a clause was introduced to prevent the reception in this country of any Nuncio of the Pope; but there was nothing in that a m which would prevent intercourse on that subject.. Let the m Pr looussik a a t but noN Prussia. D cio iplowasreceived matic relations w ert ehe in saineta was maintained theher , and , un case, as we understood the Noble Lord to say, with Russia and Hanover. He contended, therefore, th at there was no thing to prevent England taking the course he had alluded to. He thought he was right in the course he pursued at the time he had alluded to in 1848, and h e was still of opi nion that they ought not to receive the Pope's nuncio in this country. In the treaty of Vienna there was a special exception made in favour of the nuncio of the Pope, and that would be the case in this country ; if they had a nuncio of the Pope, he would take precedence of the other ambas sadors in this country. In the present affair he really thought the person who had most right to complain was the Pope himself, and if their object had been to entrap him into the affair, they could not have acted better for that purpose.— (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He need hardly remind their Lordships of the passing of the Bequests Act, which contem plated the existence of the Catholic bishops. The First Lord of the Treasury (Lord John Russell), in every way that was possible, had led the Pope to believe that he was giving no offence in the late act. In 1844 that Noble Lord had said that he saw no reason why Catholic bishops should not call themselves by the titles of the sees over which they presided ; and in another speech the Noble Lord further said that nothing could be more absurd and puerile than to prevent the as sumption of such titles.—(Hear.) Again, in '4B the Noble Lord was asked a question by an Honourable Gentleman, and he (Lord Aberdeen) agreed in every word of that answer, which was admirably reasoned, and had strength in every word. The Noble Lord ( Lord John Russell) said in that answer that he did not know that the Pope had any authority to constitute . bishops an d archb i shops in this country. He had not given his consent to such appoint ments, and would not give it. But with regard to the spiritual power of th e Pope, wh a t ever control was to be ob tained over the spiritual authority of the Pope could only be obtained by an agreement to that end. They must give advantages to the Pope, and have a dvantages in return, and among them they must stipulate that the Pope should not appoint to dioceses in this country without the consent of the Queen, or they must say that they would not have anything to do with the matter. For his own part, the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) went on t o say, that he thought they ought not to have any arrangement to recog nise the appointments of the Pope. Now, from this lan guage, he (Lord Aberdeen) inferred, and he thought cor rectly, that there having been no agreement with the Pope, he did not requi re th e consen t o f t h e C rown in the late appointments.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then referred to the announ cement ma d e i n t h e R oman G azet t e , in Janu ary, 1848, to the effect that Dr. Wiseman had been appointed Archbishop of Westminster. Such an incident could not escape observation. The Noble Lord (Lord Minto, as we un derstood) could not have overlooked so important a fact, and it was matter of moment that the announcement was made officially in the Gazette of Rome. As to the Bill before them, he would ask how was it to affect their fellow-countrymen in Ireland ?—(Hear, hear.) Their Lordships were aware that the rescript of the 29th Sept., 1850, only related to the appointment of bishops in England, and therefore their in terference in Ireland had been thought to be uncalled for; and it was urged that if they were determined to legislate ogainst what was called an aggression, that legislation should be confined to England. But he must agree so far with Go vernment, that if the Act was to be passed at all, it must in chide Ireland—(Hear)—for to say that the Queen held a different position in England to what she did in Ireland, would be to sign the destruction of the Church in Ireland.— (Hear, hear.) A measure, however, which must be so in adequate, must produce mischievous consequences in Ireland. If they passed the present Act, unless it became a dead letter in the statute-book, they would never see peace in Ireland.— (Hear, hear.) He would now say a few words as regarded the penalties imposed by the Act, and he could not help saying, that if they attempted to impose the penalties in Ireland, they might apprehend that serious consequences would be the result. They might have a refractory priest, for instance, turning an informer against the bishop who en forced the ecclesiastical discipline binding upon his clergy, and in a hundred other ways it would lead to end less mischief and complaints on the part of those who might be subjected to those penalties, while, on the ether side, there would be complaints if the law was not carried; into effect, and we should have a renewal of that discord, anbetosity, and rancour from which we had been free for the last twenty ;wears, and which it was sickening to think we should ever have again in this country.—( Hear.) He would not detain their Lordships longer, and was aware that he should not have their concurrence in the sentiments he had expressed, or the motion with which be would conclude. He could not help expressing his deep regret at the absence of two Noble Lords, and at the cause of that absence—(Hear) —two Noble Lords both of them the long tried advocates of civil and religious liberty, but who were prevented from being present by the state of their health. He felt how ina dequate he was to express the sentiments which he held in common with them with regard tit the measure of her Ma jesty's Ministers, and only wished that their Lordships could have been persuaded by the mild wisdom of the one, and the fervid eloquence of the other.— (Hear.) The Noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. Lord BEAUMONT said he was placed in a situation of pceuliar difficulty in attempting to convey to the minds of others the impressions which these acts of the Pope had made on his own mind. His difficulties had, however, been partially relieved by the speech of the Noble Earl, inasmuch as many of the points relied upon by the: Noble Earl as dif ficulties in the case would be found to be completely visionary. Another reason urged by the Noble Earl, which had contributed to relieve his mind, was that the indulgence shown to the Roman Catholics in this country in former years, was some excuse for the Court of Rome taking the course it had done. He thought, on the contrary, that in stead of an excuse it was an aggravation—(Hear, hear) — and that the indulgence previously extended to Roman Catholics would be an inducement to the Court of Rome to abstain from everything offensive, either to the feelings of the people or the dignity of the Crown —(Hear, hear.) He would allude to these psints more fully, but before doing so he had to express the pain with which he felt compelled to take the cousre he did on this question. He stood alone and isolated from the members of his own community, for, although he knew there were many who felt and sympa thised with him, but who did not come forward openly to express that agreement and sympathy, he was, however, prepared to take all the consequences of his position. He was aware that there were distinctions drawn between the civil and religious powers, and that it was said in the recent acts of the Pope that he had not trenched upon the former. He was prepared to meet all these objections, however often they might be repeated ; and he solemnly declared that he believed he was right in principle, that he was right as a loyal subject, that he was right as a Christian, and right he be lieved betore his God, in the course he took on this question. In doing so, he laid down the same principle as he believed was laid down by the Noble Marquis below him. He said he would do nothing by this Act which would infringe in the slightest degree one iota on the civil and religious liberty of any individual whatever, which would interfere in the slightest degree with the freedom of any religious body, or which should in the slightest way trench on the spiritual character of the Roman Catholic Church, or the spiritual necessities of the Roman Catholic clergy.—(Hear, hear.) He would look in the first place at the position in which Roman Catholics were placed before the necessity arose for pass ing this Bill ; and, in the next place, to the position in which the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic priests would be placed by farther legislation. Previous to the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act, the ex ercise of the Roman Catholic religion was limited in this country as far as individuals were concerned, but since the passing of that law no interference whatever had been allowed with any religious act. The Roman Catholic in this country enjoyed the freedom which he wished here still to enjoy, but which he certainly did not enjoy even in some Roman Catholic countries, of wor shipping where he pleased and when he pleased.—(Hear, hear.) He was in every way a free agent, and he (Lord Beaumont) wished that a free agent he should remain.— (Hear, hear.) What was the position of the Roman Catholic Church in this country? With certain exceptions, it might almost be called, not a tolerated, but a sanctioned Church, There was not one rite that a religious: community could desire which was not enjoyed. The Church services were full, and administered by duly ordained priests, deacons, and bishops. They could have even bishops and archbishops or dained by the Pope of Rome. Every freedom was given to the Church to communicate with Rome with respect to church administration and church affairs. In short, the members of the Roman Catholic Church did all they wanted without let or hindrance. It had a perfect hierarchy, and might have had if it chose, what he feared it never would get from Rome, a regular domestic hierarchy.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to take away none of these powers. He would leave to that Church every privilege it had, and he would be glad to get in addition that regular domestic hierarchy to which he attached se much importance. But he would ask, could any religious body be placed in a more favourable position which was not an established and domi nant Church?—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to give them all the liberty they could desire, except the liberty of de priving others of their liberty--( Hear, hear)—or the liberty of attempting to deprive the country of its rights, the Crown of its prerogatives.—( Hear, hear.) As individual liberty was limited by the condition that we were not to in fringe on the liberty of others, in the same way the liberty of a church was founded by the condition that it should not destroy the lib er t y o f other Churches, and the liberty of this country must be dependent upon its complete inde pendence and freedom from f ore i gn power. There must be no power within thi s realm to coerce or interfere with the free actions of the p eop l e other than their own legislation and their own institutions. (Cheers.) . This led him to the definition of spiritual and temporal, because it was on that ground that the whole question settled. He wished to know what change there was in the spiri tual character between the position of the bishops formerly and as they would be under this measure? He knew that language had been held on this subject which he could only call bombastic language, and which raised ex pectations that co u ld net b e fulfilled, about this country revolving like a planet round the sun of Rome. Turning from such language as this, he would go to another decla ration of Dr. Wisem an , as to the effect of the late bull on the spiritual charact er and position of the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy in this country; and when he referred to Dr. Wiseman, however he might differ from the policy of some of his acts, he referred to him as a gentleman and a scholar.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Dr. Wiseman said that, by the new arrangement the bishop would not be one item more a bishop than he was before—that not one of them had their spiritual jurisdiction extended—that there was not the smallest additional clerical jurisdiction, or new powers given over the Roman Catholics in England—that in all these the bishops were where they were, what they were, and what they would continue to be. There was no difference.—(Hear, hear.) These were the words of Dr. Wiseman, and taking that evidence alone, it was conclu sive that no new powers had been added to the Roman Catholic Church in a spiritual sense, because the bishops, in a spiritual sense, were where they were and what they were. It was not necessary for spiritual purposes, that they should have had territorial titles conferred upon them. If the object had simply been to confer a spiritual jurisdic tion on them, they might as well have been called Bishop of Melipotamus as Birmingham ; the name did not make the slightest difference as far as their jurisdiction over Roman Catholics was concerned.--(Hear, hear.) But what was the effect with regard to the temporal question? There could be no doubt that in ordinary cases an appointment to a territo rial diocese included the temporalities of that diocese. In this case there were no temporalities attached to the sees created by the Pope.—(Hear, hear.) But the creation of a territorial see was, in all cases, even in Roman Catholic countries, the act of the temporal power, and not of the Pope. Wherever the Pope had attempted it it had been resisted, even by force of arms, and in a recent case even the King of Naples, one of the most dutiful children of the Pope, had resisted the creation of a diocese, in that way.— (Hear, hear.) It was clear then, that the creation of a diocese was a temporal act; and if the creation of a diocese was a temporal act, the appointment of a bishop was still more strongly so. He wished to keep the temporal and the spiritual power separate, and to prevent the inter ference of the Pope with the laws of this country. He did not agree in the doctrine, that the only limit to the spiritual power of the Pope was his own will.—( Hear.) He pro tested against that doctrine as a Roman Catholic—he pro tested against it as leading to usurpation and tyranny, as a doctrine which might convert Europe into a jumble, in which thei continent might be ruled by a monarch who, although he wore three crowns, was at this moment a puppet in the hands of other powers.—(Cheers.) He held in his hands the declaration of English peers, who, unlike their .n ancestors in en dtleineeteimoef tohfisrena, Edward au i and p n r s o t t e e a s d tin o g f assertingagainst submission Rome—instead of asserting their rights as Englishmen mid as Catholics—instead of standing bravely up and resisting the introduction of the tyranny of Rome in spiritual and the lep to temporal matters, into this country, he found these peers asserting that the authority of the Pope, as t he success or of St. Peter—(A laugh)—could only be limited b y his own free act or concession. Just let them look at the ef fect of this doctrine? In whatever country it had been acted upon, it had produced the most monstrous deeds. All attempts spiritual acts. The bulls by which excommunications at excommunication hudbtehenese done by the Pop e as Do mini, annually published, was a spiritual act. All these were fulminated were spiritualacts.The bull In Coma things, all these interferences, and other consequences which modern civilization shrunk from, and which no man would attempt to countenance without running the risk of bringing to the ground all constitutional principles and institutions, were, and are professed to be, spiritual acts. What could they say of the doctrine and the policy whi c h led to theissu ing of a public document, in which the very existence of the Sovereign of this country wa s i gnore d , w hil e a ffecting to portion out the realm into dioceses—(Hear)—and the Fo rd s of which, if taken in their pl a i n an d na t ura l sense, heape d insult Upon insult on the dig n ity o f th e C r own and the exist-a 22, 1851. ing institutions or this - country?---(Hear.) A document which, taken in its plain sense, was au overt act, totally opposed to the laws of this country —nav, to the laws of every country in Europe.—(Hear, hear.) He could not agree, therefore, with the Noble Earl in thinking this was merely a spiri tual act. On the contrary, he believed it was an infrac• tion of the spirit, if not the letter—and he believed it was of the letter as well as the spirit of the law of nations—and it was on this ground that he justified the course he took with reference to the Bill. Having arrived at this point, he should like to consider what the effect of the measure would be on three parties—namely, its effect upon the Catholics, upon the Government, and upon the country. On this subject he had received an immense number of letters from Roman Catholic clergymen in Eng land, some of them of the most distinguished ability and the sincerest piety. In one of these it was stated that the general feeling among the English Roman Catholic clergy was against being any longer under the Propaganda, eveu spiritually, because it was a secret, arbitrary, irresponsible, despotic tribunal, and was not tolerated in any Catholic state having a real hierarchy. The explanation given to this bull was that it took away instead of increasing the power of the Pope, and that he abandoned a portion of that in fluence and power he formerly exercised over the vicars-apos tolic, giving to them a power which they did not before pos sess. It was pretended that he did away with the power of the Propaganda, and released the English Roman Catholics from its influence, and that he did not intend arbitrarily to ap point bishops against the wishes of that body, and overbearing their election. Now the Irish hierarchy had all the cha racter and qualities, until lately, o f a legal hierarchy ; they elected their own bishops, and possessed a proper and fair exercise of their rights; but that c h aracter of freedom and independence, which not only made the Irish a real hierar chy, but made them a national hierarchy, had lately been interfered with by the arbitrary act or the Pope, in sending out, against their advice and wish, Dr. Cullen and others as prelates. In the letter apostolic, the Pope, or rather, the Court of Rome—because he believed the Pope had little per sonal influence—had taken care that the string connecting the English Catholics with Rome should be drawn tighter than ever it was ; and, instead of giving independence to the hierarchy here, they were going to do that which they h a d already done in Ireland, by reserving (and he understood they had even done so already) the power of nominating to all vacant dioceses.—(Hear, hear.) He had aeon a do cument in the Italian newspapers, which he believed to be authentic, purporting that the Pope declared it to be his wish that in England the Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies should be carried on more in accordance with the practice at Rome; and he also understood that the Pope had lately issued a document in which he makes preparation not only to alter all that may have been corrupted by acquaintance and contact with a more liberal state of things, but to send over Italians to bring back the Romans Catholics in England to conformity with the prac tices of Rome, and place them more entirely under the Pro paganda.—(Year, hear.) He further understood that one of the new dioceses had been filled up lately in that manner, without any consultation with the Catholic body in this country. There was nothing in the laws of this country to compel a Roman Catholic to obedience to his clergy, and if he does do so it was perfectly voluntary on his part, nor did he consider Parliament would be justified in inter fering. But that being so, what would be the effect of this bull on a Roman Catholic? He must either reject it abso lutely and entirely, bowing down in humble obedience to the Church of Rome, or by taking it c ou t e qu i coute break with Rome. Now, what was the declaration recently made by certain Roman Catholics in England? That as Catholics they were bound by the principles of their religion to maintain the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and to submit in obedience without reasoning on the matter, either one way or another. Take either alternative. What would be the case if they looked on this act of the Pope of Rome in the same light as the laws of this country did? It would come to this— that as the Pope had merely given a name, and not autho rity, he had merely made Dr. Wiseman Archbishop of the Roman Catholics residing in Westminster, which he had before done, and that he had not created any archdiocese of Westminster. They must come to the conclusion that the Pope by this authority had not created either the see or the diocese, because, according to law, he could not do so, and that, in fact, he had merely—if the word were not too strong, and did not savour of disrespect —" nicknamed" a certain number of persons. There was nothing in the law to prevent the Pope from giving nicknames; they could not pass a law saying it should be an offence for the Pope to call any person by whatever name he chose to give him ; it was a thing to which legislation could not apply, for he was not in their jurisdiction, and no act of theirs could affect him. As far as this was an act against names, he considered it rather a weak way of legislation and, to a certain degree, useless ; for if after that Bill was passed, any private individnel chose to call any priest or prelate by the name of bishop or curate, they could not interfe re w i t h hi m for so doing. If be thought, that was merely a Bill of a nature attacking names, he would not vote for it, t but he did not look on it as a Bill of that character, but of a very different character. If the Roman Catholics hadj taken the view that they must look on that question in the light of the law of the land, they must consider the whole proceedings of the Pope in this matter null and void ; but if they did not, to what were they exposed? If they imagined that all that had been announced—the naming of the new Archbishop of Westminster, and his investiture with the ring and other badges of authority, was a mere parade, when they mistook entirely the words of the letter apostolic. The Noble Earl (Aberdeen) said that letter was a mere form, but it was nothing of the sort, and was never intended to be con sidered as such. Was it of no effect, when it annulled and destroyed the ancient archbishoprics of York and Canter bury, and the ancient bishoprics of Chester and Durham, rendering them void, and in the face of these titles and jurisdiction, has created, with full power and ju r i s di c ti on , the archbishopric of Westminster, and twelve bishops be sides? The Pope said, that in the full plenitude of his power, he did away with all privileges whatsoever of the ancient sees, and ordered that the apostolic letter, enacting these things, should always be valid and firm, and hold good, notwithstanding the rights of all former sees in Eng land, and notwithstanding all things to the contrary what soever. What was that but declaring positively that all acts done by Parliament, or by the Queen, contrary to the apostolic letter, must be considered null and void, and not binding on the consciences of all Roman Catholics? It an nihilated the Right Rev. Bench on his left hand, and esta blished another. Was it not actually telling the people of this country to rise in rebellion? Was it the act of a friendly sovereign? If another friendly sovereign made such an appeal in this country, would it be considered as in accordance with the principles of international law? If they were to send to Rome bishops and archbishops, and appoint a Bishop of Rome with instructions to distribute Bibles, and declaring null and void all things done contrary, and if we were to call on the people of the country to receive such persons and accept their authority instead of that of the prelates appointed by the lawful Sovereign, would not that be urging to rebellion?—(Hear, hear.) He took that apostolic letter in the extremest sense, and he believed that in that sense most Roman Catholics did consider it binding on their consciences to obey. In what an unfortunate di lemma had the advisers of the Court of Rome placed the unfortunate Roman Catholics in this country, who must either commit a breach with Rome, or by submitting to Rome, violate all those principles of loyalty' —not to say to the Queen, but to the constitution—leaving out of view the question of violating the laws of this country ?—(Hear, hear.) What was to become of their legislation unless they stopped this at once?—(Hear, hear.) He had already called their attention to the existence of a general reactionary movement on the continent of Europe, and that there was a design for establishing the preponderance of ultramontane doctrines. Unfortunately it was true that the ultramontane party predominated on this side of the Alps—not so much on the other—and as it happened that where there was more zeal for the Church of Rome, there was less division, it was unfortunately the case that those who entertained different views were not an active body, and the consequence was that the whole character of Roman Catholicism was degraded to an ultramontane character. The tendency of this bull was to give Roman Catholicism in this country the same character. (Hear, hear.) It was in order that they might be prepared to receive some such doc trines as were breathed in the recent concordats with Spain and Tuscany. It was a step to bring in that Roman opinion to destroy and crush that liberal Catholicism which had grown up in this country among the Roman Catholics of England.—(Hear, hear.) It was to bring over to those absurd ultramontane opinions of a few fanatic converts— who brought more disgrace than honour to Roman Ca tholicism by their extreme ideas and absurd practices—those plain, honest, straightforward Catholics, who were contented with what they had before, and were anxious to conform to the free and liberal spirit of this country. It was to intro duce a system of interference with educational establish ments, arid in the end destroy every liberal institution of an educational character in England and Ireland, to destroy the Queen's colleges, the greatest blessing ever bestowed on Ire land, to undermine the national-school system, and, in a word, to build np a wall around the Ro man Catholics, and so keep from them every study and science which they feared might injure that spirit of absolutism which now existed in the govern ment of Rome, and introduce something in the na ture of an Index Expurgatorius, to shut out the very light of science and history.—(Loud cheers.) They all knew that but a short time ago the Court of Rome condemned some of the sciences ; they looked on astronomy as Deism, and on geology as materialism. They crushed and anni hilated anything like free judgment, freedom of justice, a spirit of liberty, or a feeling of independence.—(Hear, hear.) That was the movement now going on, and it was because that was the character of that movement that the absolute Governments of Europe and the friends of ab solutism had joined in the coalition for the support of the Court of Rome, using it as an instrument to effect their own purposes, although he believed that while using that in strument it would prove fatal in their hands and wound themselves. It was for this that Austria had abandoned the sensible laws of Joseph the Second; it was for this that Tuscany had abandoned the wise laws of Leopold the Second; and it was for this that the Governments of Aus tria and Tuscany had given up that which had made the people of those cot tries comparatively happy and contented with their condition, so far as concerned religious matters. It was because he believed such to be the character of the Court of Rome that he joined in this protest against this invasion of the rights of conscience, and of civil and re ligious liberty, this cheek on the progress of science, this at tempt to throw society back, beyond even the mediaeval pe riod, into the darkness and obscurity of the dark ages. He did not look on it as an isolated question whether a man was to be called Archbishop of Westminster or anything else. He looked on it as a movement of a great civil and religious nature, which England was bound by every consideration to oppose and resist.—(Loud cheers.) It was on those grounds alone that he could give his assent to the Bill, the details. of which were not much to his taste. This was a little Bill, which, as they all knew, would never take effect; a n d was not the mode, moreover, in which h e would havehdteatlot with the subject. To be completely effectual, it "g have touched the cause of all the mischief—it oug h touched the Pope. He should have expectedt t h to at ba th v e e messenger to Government would have sent a right trusty only of s th f a te i h t se h u p t p o o both supported te c Rome, to protest against his act as a bre a a og c n h ai himself and this country. He protested aggres sion on that ground, and on that ground the Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON —MY Lords, it Was m y for tune many years ago to prevailonfelytoiut to m accepty duty on all the Roman o Catholic Relief Act, and I have casions, and under various circumstances, to object to any proposed alterations of that measure. All it s provisions were well considered at the time. They were founded on the petitions presented to Parliament by the Roman Ca tholics. with the view of obtaining an Act of that kind. All the endeavours which for thirty years had been made in order to obtain what were called securities for the Church, ac companying concessions to the R oman C at h o li cs , were taken into ceusideration, and after all the Catholic Relief Bill was proposed to your Lordships, and carried through both Houses of Parliament by the aid of very large majo. rities. I shall alwaya feel it my duty to maintain the pro. visions of that measure ; and, I confess, I viewed with alarm, and felt great concern at, the bull and other papers which appeared in the course of last year—and under ' which a hierarchy was appointed by the Pope, and other proceedings adopted—because it was apparent to me that it was absolutely iwpossiblo to pug over three things Without • having rec 4 e to som e f res h A c t o f l eg i s l a ti on.- (H ear.) t 0 The Pope himeelf is a man of mild character, he was a popular l two o v individual, he sought popularity on all occasions, and he states in the very rescript which he sent to this country superiorthat was ecc l e s s e i n a s s i t b i e there were merodßeosmoan Catholics f providi n in for this country, and he discuSsed those two modes. One of those modes was the appointment of vicars-apostolic, and the other the appointment of Cardinal Wiseman to the arch diocess of a district in which the Queen's Palace and the Houses of Parliament are located.-( Hear, hear.) The Pope took the latter course, and relinquished the old mode of af fecting his object, which had been recognized and approved by the Government of this country. Under these circum stances-the character of the Pope being such as I have de scribed-- I confess I was anxious to know what could have been the motive for the preference given to the inew mode of proceeding. The Noble Lord who addressed you just now, with so much honour to himself, knowing the position of the Roman Catholics-knowing the state of opi nion at Rome being sensible that a design is en tertained to stifle liberal opinions in this country, thought he perceived the drift of the rescript in reading it. For my.. self, however, I confess I could not discover the drift of the proceeding until I read the attack made by Cardinal Wiseman on the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.-- ( Laughter, and cheers.) Then it occurred to me what wa s the of aimed at. It was the old object of antagonism, and the course was taken by the advice of Cardinal Wiseman, as he himself states.--( Hear.) At the same time at which Cardinal Wiseman published the rescript which notified his owe promotion he made an attack, entirely undeserved, on the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.-(Hear.) I then could doubt no longer as to the object of Rome, and I saw clearly that something like this Bill which I now hold in my hand must be brought under the consideration of your Lord ships, or that I must give my consent to certain alterations of the terms of the Relief Act.--(gear, hear.) I cannot concur in the proposition of my Noble Friend that the Bill shall be read a second time this day Six months.-(Hear, hear.) Circumstances have occurred which render it impossible for you to return to the position in which you stood before this act of the Pope was committed. The object of the passing of the Relief Act was to repeal all the laws adopted against the Roman Catholics first at the Reformation-next at the time of what was called the Popish Plot; and, thirdly, in consequence of the Popish reign of James 11., and the war of succession in Ireland, out of which, and in conse quence, grew all the penal enactments against Catholics in that country. It was, I say, the object of the Relief Act to get rid of these altogether. But those who brought forward that Act--those who urged your Lordships and the other House te su PPort it, repeatedly stated that nothing therein touched the laws on which the Reformation was founded. That was cautiously avoided. ,When we-the authors and promWers of the elief Act, were charged with having touched the Reformation, we distinctly proved the con trary, and showed that we had done nothing to affect the laws by which the Reformation was established in this country. In 1846, however-in the reign of the pre sent Queen-certain old statutes were repealed, and among them one relating to the introduction of bulls into this country. If that law bad net been repealed it would have been impossible that the act of the Pope could have taken effect, and, consequently, all fresh legislation would have been unnecessary. Cardinal Wiseman would not have dared to come to England and publish the Pope's bull or rescript, establishing the new hierarchy.-(Cheers.) The thing was impossible; it could not have happened. Under these cir cumstances, I say you cannot return to the position in which you stood when the Roman Catholic Relief Act was passed, or before the Act of 1846 passed, which repealed the penal ties attaching to all the Acts with which it dealt, but left the acts themselves standing as misdemeanours. The legisla tion on the subject stands in this state, that misdemeanours may be committed, but cannot be punished.-(Hear , hear.) Under these circumstances, I say you cannot stand on the Relief Act, but must pass a measure to meet the particular act of the Pope complained of, and to prevent the repetition of such acts in future. I have no desire to infringe the re ligious privileges of the Roman Catholics • on the contrary. I wish them t o en j oy every means of following their re ligion with perfect freedom.- (Hear, hear.) I confess I view without apprehension the effect which this measure may have in Ireland.-(Hear, hear.) We have had a good deal of experience of the effect produced in Ireland by mea sures passed by the Legislature. There was the Relief Act. A great deal was expected from that, and it was said that it would put an end to agitation in Ireland for ever. But in the very year-nay, I believe, almost in the very month in which it became the law of the land. Irish agitation recom menced.- (Cheers and laughter.) How often, since then, has the Crown, from time to time, had occasion to complain of agitation in Ireland? How often has the Crown come to Parliament to demand additional powers for the purpose of putting down the agitation, or worse than agitation, existing in that country-the Relief Act notwithstanding ?-( Hear, hear.) My advice to your Lordships is to do that which is just and necessary -to maintain the power and prerogatives of the Crown, and to protect the subjects of this country and no more; and you may rely on it you will have the support and good wishes of the loyal people of Ireland as well as of this country.-(Cheers.) Having the misfortune on this occasion to differ from my Noble Friend the Noble Earl who addressed your Lordships second in the debate, I felt it ne cessary to trouble you with these few words, to show on what grounds I intend to support the motion for the second read ing of this Bill.-(Loud cheers.) The Earl of MALMESBURY said that he looked upon this bull as an insult to her Majesty and an invasion of the Constituticsa. That was the view taken by millions. It gave the Roman Catholics a synodical action which they had not before. He believed that as far as this Bill went it would meet the insult and aggression. The Noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) did not believe that the honour of England had been attacked, and that the grant of territorial titles was not an insult to her Majesty; but he differed with the Noble Earl upon that point. England was free, and the sovereign of a foreign state had granted territorial titles. It was to prevent a repetition of this insult that this Bill was intended. It could not be done in France or Prussia.-(Hear, hear.) He spoke as to the manner of these appointments. There was an utter absence, to use a familiar expression, of even common civility. The Noble Earl had said that instead of attacking our own countrymen they should have attacked the man who com mitted the aggression. But would the Noble Earl, if at the head of foreign affairs at the time, have sent a fleet to Ancona against the Pope? Judging from his career of peaceful policy, he doubted much whether he would ever have consented to that step. Then what other course re mained open to them to repel this aggression but internal legislation? He hoped the Bill before their Lordships would answer its purpose so far as the Queen's prerogative was concerned. He would gladly support this Bill. He regretted the absence of the Noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), as he would have fully stated the course he recommended. He wished that Parliament should proceed first by resolu tion and then by legislation. He thought with the Noble Earl that before legislating there should have been an in quiry into that spiritual power which the Pope arrogated, to see whether his assumption stood in the same position as before. There were various points that might be investi gated. He would not trouble their Lordships further than by intimating his intention to support the Bill. Lord BERNERS said he felt there was a principle at issue in the question before the House, a principle of religious liberty, which this Bill would jeopardise. The Pope had constituted a hierarchy of his own Church. Had that in fringed upon the rights of the Queen? Ile entirely agrees that an insult had been committed, but it was not against the Crows or the people, but the Church. The Duke of ARGYLL said he should go into the subject before them without one word of preface. After alluding generally to the arguments used by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, he referred to what had been said by the Noble Earl (Aberdeen) during the late Ministerial cri'is. The Noble Earl distinctly said that he would not form a Government in England on the footing of passing over the act of the Pope in silence. Now, there was the rescript of the Pope, and the pastoral letter of Cardinal Wiseman. The latter was as pompous and absurd a docu ment, proceeding from the pen of a foolish priest, as ever was issued-(A laugh)-and he conceived it beneath the notice of any individual in the country.-(Hear, hear.) The protest of the Noble Earl was not against the letter of Cardinal Wiseman, but against the rescript of the Pope. Now the Noble Earl had that night told them that the lan guage used in the rescript was only in the usual terms which were applied on such occasions. Therefore the act against which his Noble Friend said he would protest was the act of giving territorial titles and sees in England. His Noble Friend could not but admit by his dis claimer that the act was one which deserved some pro test by the people of England.-- (Criei of "Hear, hear.") The whole question was with regard to the titles. The Noble Earl argued that if they tolerated the Catholic Church they must tolerate it in its full development; but in Catholic countries the Governments did prevent its full de velopement. It hat been argued that in these countries the Governments posse4sed no right but which was founded on agreement or endowment. He (the Duke of Argyll) as serted as a matter of historical fact, that the restrictions put on the Catholic Church in the countries alluded to was, be cause it was thought that the full development of the Church would expose the state to dangers.-(Hear.) The Noble Duke then called the attention of their Lordships to a speech of Mr. Canning in a debate upon the Catholic claims, in which that eminent statesman said that the penal coda was not intended to repress the Catholics as a sect, but to punish them as traitors. So far as the penalti es wen t, he thougjand, the h Bill should be extended to the Epi sco p a l Ch u rch in r - A) but he protested most solemnly aga i ns t the doctrine that as they they were bound to treat disse n ti ng P ro t es tant bodies could treated the hiearchy of th e Ch urc h o f Rom a. not compare the disse n ti ng b o di es w ith the v ast organised arious periods hierarchy of the Ch urc h o f R ome , w hich at v had compelled se vera l countries of - Li put them. s E ur ope to They were, selves in a state o f self-defence.-(Bear, bear., in the mouths of to rememb er , th a t excommunication thing of Presbyterians and Protestants wa s a very different of Rome. On that from what it was in the Church of their Lordship sub ject he begged to call the attentio n when a man wished 's to a case that occurred in Ireland , once of his manifesting that desire, he was taken up by a s the Douay yl, the north of Ireland, although it however, he wastranslationcalled d he was reading. One Sunday , actice and on the upon by the give u p the Pr . man refusing to do priest to uttered a curse against him, BO the priest to O ne of which was of a most frightful character hear. of the men kept a mill, and the consequence was th at no one would bring g rain to i t , a nd no one wo u l d work with them. The men, in consequence, were very properly advised to bring an action t the priest. He begged Noble Lords to mark, that against • ti n e municawas one of the; great . powers exer cised by the Roman Catholic Church; but he rejoiced to find that a judge and jury had in this case taken a different view from the lawyers, and said, though they tolerated the Boman Catholic Church, they did not allow it to ruin men, and they fined the priest 70/.:--(Cheers from the cross benches.) The Noble Earl es pecially adverted to the effect this Bill would have upon Ire land. WI , • territorial titles were prohibited by the Catholic Relief Bill, with the exception of one then in existence, and one since created; so that in truth the present Act merely extended and applied the principle and enactments of the Roman Catholic Relief Act to these two additional bishops in Ireland.-(Hear, hear.) Surely, if we had a right to pro. hibit the old territorial titles which existed in Ireland pre vious to the pas= • g of the Catholic Relief Bill, we had a much stronger right to prohibit the use of the new territorial titles.-(Hear.) But besides the Relief Act, the Noble Earl referred to the Charitable Bequests Act. Now he did not understand how either the Noble Earl or any one connected with the Government of the late Sir Robert Feel could refer to that Act as an argument against the presen t measure. In that Act, as at first introduced, the thene use Se cretary for the Home Department carefully avoided the of the titles of Roman Catholic bishops, and ca lled them was merely " persons in holy orders." A strong objection taken to that course by the relative of alloble Duke whom said that the fact he did not now see in his place. It wa a gbt to be recog that the Roman Catholics had bishops ° great favour and nised ; and then Sir James Graham, ° intimated that he out of courtesy to the Roman Catholics, the, Roman catholic was willing to insert the names er. Aw l ° guarding himself archbishops and bishops, though. carefully_o The language of Sir against giving them territorial ti d at the - itutteniti - most James was most explicit, and _ me lie said he had no objection - toluktit . Roman guarded. Catholic archbishops and bishops, but, for the maintenance of sound principles, they ought not to be detail* by territorial ~~