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

"spiritual" matter? He (Mr. Muntz) called it ex ceedingly temporal.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He could give the hame of a gentleman who had personal knowledge of the tranoiction. The question before the , Rouse was not one of civil and religious liberty. This country had been subjected to a great and impudent ag , greeidon, which was the foundation of a premeditated and insolent attack on the Protestantism of Europe.—(Hear.) What a feather would it be in the cap of the Pope were he able to say of the people of this country, " See how I have subjected them Have I not made bishops for !England? Rave I not superseded their very church ?" He would • do his beat to support the independence of the Pro testant religion, believing it for the interest of the , country that the Protestant religion should be maintained. Re never would have it said by his children that he had gone out of the way to encourage the influence and increase of a • religion which, in his opinion, did not conduce to the inte rests or the prosperity of the country. Mr. SCULLY thought the speech of the Hon. Member for 4innin g bam would have answered very well before the plaxin g of the Emancipation Act, for it was directed against • the Catholic religion. How the so-called aggression affected • the pockets or persons of any one in this country, he could • ,'not understand. The receipt only gave to England what had existed in Ireland for 14 centuries. As a friend of religious liberty he opposed the Bill. Members of caper persuasions than the Roman Catholic had denied that any aggression had been committed ; and the number of Roman Catholics having increased from 67,000 in 1760, to upwards of 1,000,000, their chapels now exceeding 800, and colleges, monasteries, '*ad other institutions having sprung up, there were good reasons why change should be made in the mode of govern s ing'ahe Roman Catholic Church in this country. What had •:, been done could not be undone. The total withdrawal of a ,„ bull or rescript was very rare; and there was no reason for " the withdrawal of the rescript establishing a hierarchy. The " son. and Learned Member for Plymouth had shown that the language axed in creating vicars-apostolic was similar to that used in the rescript. There was just , as much aggres ' "lion in appointing vicars-apostolic as in appointing bishops. The Bill would place the Roman Catholics of England in '' &different position from the Roman Catholies in the wilds of Australia or the back tlettlements of Canada. If the pre rogatives of the Crown had been invaded, it might be asked Whether these prerogatives did not extend to the colonies? Bet, if the State paid the Roman Catholic bishops in the h . colonies, why not allow them to exist here on the voluntary system? The results of the present proceeding would oo of a melancholy and serious character as re l. garded Ireland, where the 'Roman Catholic hierarchy was lenognized by law and custom, by Courts, in Acts of Parlia 'neat, and in the very proceedings of the House of Com o' roans. The•24th section of the Act of 1829 had been vir teeny repealed by subsequent proceedings; for no chaplain , s, Could be appointed to a workhouse without the recommenda ',-tion of the, Roman Catholic bishop; and under the Cha- • rifable Bequests Act the title of a parish priest to whom a • bequest was left must be proved by his credentials received ) from a Roman Catholic bishop. The statement of the Hon and Learned Member for Dundalk on the effect of the clause ltt, the Bill taken in connexion with the preamble had not been answered. In his pastoral of February, 1851, Arch ' hishpp Murray said the Bill, though nominally directed O l ga /nit Catholic bishops, was in reality directed against s s , their. religion; and Dr. Ryan had expressed the feeling , ilithich'pervaded Ireland, where the Bill was regarded with esbniversal detestation, when he stated at a public meeting s 1114 if the Government, waned to ruin the country they ' could not have adopted a measure more certain to produce that effect. These were the opinions not of persons who • Were accustomed to take part in politics, but of men of re : habits, who interfered little in the public questions of •• t he da.—(Hear.) It was said that public opinion pressed • for legislationon this subject. He believed that there was a party in the country anxious for legislation, but heir principal object was to cover up and conceal the dis s oensiona that prevailed in the Church of England itself. He !tamed the House against being led away by a cry of danger w t the Church ; a cry which, as the great Grattan observed, 'mid always been mischievous to the country; and he trusted Abe Rouse would consider seriously the consequences likely tO follow from their yielding to a cry so fallacious and foolish. i .,.'"(Flear.) Strong charges had been made against Roman :otholics of holding a divided allegiance, but he maintained ' that the Roman Catholics of this country held as undivided • k 1 allegiance to the Crown as the most loyal of their Protes ' ni ,fellow-countryman could possibly do. At the passing Of the E m ancipation Act in 1829 an illustrious Royal Duke .. another place gave full testimony to this undivided alle giance on the part of Roman Catholics. The same loyalty cctuated them now as then, and he hoped no further attempts Would be made in the course of the debate to impugn the shluct and character of Roman Catholics upon that head. ""(Hear, hear.) If proof were necessary to satisfy the House as to the loyalty of that portion of their fellow• subjects, he Ini n ght refer to the evidence given before the Committee of ~_°2 s by . the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, in which he explicitly anted that the autho - ity of the Pope was confined alto . gather to spiritual matters—that Catholics obeyed him in trArifttal matters.only, and that in civil matters their alle alas_ Oce to the Crown was completely undivided. — (Hear.) It *as said the late Papal act was an innovation on the - . ) °,t institutions of the country ; but he must remind the 11?tiae that their greatest institutions were derived from -4 '..laan Catholics themselves before the Reformation took tweet, ani that they could have no desire to infringe in pe lea s t d eg ree on those institutions. The Hon. Member Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) said the recent act of the °Pe interfered with the Protestant institutions of the e rAtry, but he gave no proof in support of the asser •°l3, and he (Mr. Scully) denied that it was the case. None 4 :•tho grt statesmen of the present day except te con octed w e it a h the Government, supported , legislation ho s on this (Pleation. A Noble Earl (Aberdeen) in another place ob 4erv, eda with reference to this subject, that " conscience and 0 t old were beyond the sphere I.f legislation ;" and he also tk. ', ll them, that seeing the Catholic Church was tolerated in . 111 Country, it followed that they should have liberty to aIVY out the organization of their Church in a regular man (,Hear, hear.) These sentiments were; h e was happy to 1 , participated in by nearly all the statesmen of the day •"°t connected with Government. The House should not for et that theytwere legislating for millions of Roman Catho- Il ea in this country, and that by passing this measure they tould cast an insult on those millions. They should also .ar in mind the thousands of foreigners, mostly Roman Ca tholic, who would visit us during the present year, and con !der what opinion they would form of he religious liberty of , 4 country which could adopt such a course of legislation.— Itlear, hear.) Millions of his fellow-countrymen in Ireland felt anxiously on this subject, and he begged the House se riously to consider the injurious effect which such a measure 1 / 4 1 thi present could net fail to have upon all the interests tl f that country.—(Hear, hear.) kr. HUME looked upon this discussion as one of the 1 1 0 1 °se unfortunate occurrences that had taken place during his t 'g Parliamentary career. The Bill proposed by the Go ,l_rutnent was the first step of retrogression, which would Lace the Irish people in a position by which they would be ss. 'qulered a source of weakness instead of strength to the T i antry. To see the House of Commons in this age occupied t 4 discussing such a measure was the most humiliating pic ssre that could be drawn. They were frightened with "lad less ows, and were bringing forward acts of the mediaeval k a'a, as if they were applicable to the present time. It was t s !'encholy to see such a measure as this engaging the at rition of Parliament to the total suspension of all public s h ,_• gai ness. The promoters of the Bill were acting incon it:rtly with the principle on which the Anglican Church s i rt., l depended ; for it was a measure by which they sought t eatirive one-third of their fellow -countrymen of the right Plivate judgment. It was tyrannical , it w as a g ainst the ~ ez;sutestant principle, and against that p olic y which this eTtry had for the last thirty years been carrying o u t. k - '' Q Was it not, above all, melancholy t o think that the mobl tel 8 Lord, who had a lways ibeen the advocate of i ) _g , ous liberty, should be the man to c han g e that q e osin which was going on so prosperously in Ire l a nd, and ich was placing l'rotestants and Catholics in that country the best possible footing, and to introduce in its stead ge ological hatreds and religious strife ? It was a g rievous Poa most unaccountable blunder. Within 24 hours after 4_g the Noble Lard's letter to the Bishop of i Durham he s is, • yum e), in writing to a friend, stated that it was mpos es it cou ld ex p res s the genuine se n timents of Lord John atmseell—that it was impossible one whose life had been e.e tn ted to the cause of promoting civil and religious liberty thald have become so changed and have so suddenly assumed I,:charscter of a persecutor, and that his belief was the th te ,...r was the production of some impostor. If, however, oble Lord was the author of the letter, then he told his tad that the Noble Lord must have been seeking to find em 41tent for the ensuing session, and in that case the whole I °n would be lost, and the business of the nation utterly *,"acted Five months had elapsed since he (Mr. Hume) thus siPte•to his friend, and he would ask the House whether the thl tl ioil he at that period expressed had not proved true to ' v ery letter. The Hon. Member for Birmingham had then - of aggression—indeed, " aggression, aggression," was s tit oorden o f his song—but the Hon. Gentleman never f e d what that aggression was; he denounced the Catholic th i gion. and therefore voted for the Bill in order to put down religion t reli g i on . If liberty could not exist where the Catholic *h ere existed, in what a situation was this country placed, s s e re the Catholic population was increasing year after Li s r! • The Hon. Member for Birmingham would permit L,,(Mr. Hume) to say, that the liberties of England de t'uedd upon its public institutions, and not on the religious If 'along of the people. What was meant by religious liberty ? a o e understood it to mean, the power of enjoying perfect free ra ia one's religious belief, and of using all the forms that sere considered necessary to carry out that belief. If so, t hen .in what did thi s a ll ege d agg ression consist? It had now been proved that the letter of Dr. Wiseman, which had given al much offence, was published without his authority. If het were really the fact, did it not at once take away the 1 liole ground on which this charge of aggression was i t tlided ? For years past it had been allowed that vicars tol/°stoic shosld exist in this country, and they were bound eobey the orders of the Pope in everything connected with bieir faith. The Catholics of this country petitioned to have tot il °Pi appointed, and in 1848 bishops accordingly took the ~,7r of vicars-apostolic, by which their hierarchy was cona eed, and the full religious liberty of the Roman Catholics a blished. What aggression, what insult was committed to tv at proceeding ? In what manner could it be injurious k itt `l l s country? Why, by Act of Parliament they had again ti . again admitted the existence f bishops in Ireland. He 4nled, therefore that any aggression had been committed. ea st it worthy of the House of Commons, at this day, con te.-Ing what was allowed to be done in our colonies, to be rho in passing a measure which it was never intended de aid be carr i e d into effect? It might be fit play for chil -14,1, but it was really below the dignity of grown-up men to )3 4 7 occupied. It was pandering to the worst passions of men. te kj; if the people of England were to be satisfied by having ek t : a measure passed, why not confine it to England? Why (4 4 qad it to Ireland or to Scotland? They were told that the lie t t ' e a had been insulted in having her supremacy invaded; talthough that supremacy existed in England, his coun e•ell did not admit its existence in Scotland. It was not It a tted either by. the Episcopal or the Presbyterian Church. naj o 'Peared, therefore, to him that there was neither justice, els e n , nor principle connected with the Bill ; but that it was h; gather an act of oppression towards those who had esOrto been free. He could not supp ort i t, because , in his aloe, it was a Bill of pains an d p enalti e s, and was the ;.Innin g of a system which would not be confined to the th e ill s to Catholics alone, but would by-and-by be extended to th D issenters of every ' denomination. He regretted to sea "isseuters, who had been allowed to enjoy their civil g4t • Ro man 44 d 8 9 joining in the crusade against the Catho li cs, he r willing to put them down.—(Cheer.) The Dissenters Put ta g achieved their own liberty, were found . assisting to ttiv. e trammels upon the Roman Catholics. He believed ley, forty-nine petitions were presented from the Wes a that • ht against the Papal Wes ties at night aggression. He did knownh e ,l from what party in the Wesleyan connexion, fos s ,`"er from the new or the old ; but he hoped the re -gest ko e , party would outnumber the other, for the Conference &Wed to keep the people in ignorance and to become them sowes the Pope.— (Hear, hear.) They wished to have the righi P of the Pope, and to refuse their congregations any vie,l denied power whatever, for the right of private judgment to t `Renied by the Conference, as it was by the Pope. He did to t with one more than the other, but he did not like e be the Wesleyans calling for measures of repression against Rare 3 ' of their fellow-Dissenters. If this Bill passed, and 11 7 ,;„ Put into operetion, how would they govern Ireland ? ilia the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Hatchell) get D tell the House?—(Loud and prolonged and ironical tlll OO 4 from the Irish Members.) The lainue had heard QUI of the lAw pfficeris 0 gpfiluld, lincl they had A TI 1E StIN,, 7 , 51 right to hear the opinions of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the first law officer for Ireland, sitting below him.—(Much laughter, arising from the circumstance that the Hon. Member th-s alluded to was Mr. Bernal, and not the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who we believe was not in the House.) He thought the House had also a right to know the opinions of the Secretary for Ireland.—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) For himself, regarding the mea• sure as one of persecution, he should oppose the Bill. Sir F. TIIESIGER believed it to be the general wish—he wished he could say it was the general expectation of the House, that the House should come to a division to•night.— (Hear, hear.) He felt that he was about to speak upon an exhausted subject, and to a wearied audience; but he most earnestly desired to explain his views, in order that the course he was about to pursue might not be mistaken. It was almost impossible to express an opinion upon this subject without giving offence to the religious feelings of a portion of the community. Protestants believed that an unjust aggression had been committed. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, thought that the course that had been adopted of repressing that aggression involved an invasion of civil and religious liberty. Now, he was anxious to hear how the Bill proposed to carry out the proposed object of the Noble Lord.— ( Hear, hear.) He had not heard any satisfactory explanation of the mode in wa ch the mea sure before the House would repress the present aggression, or raise any barrier to prevent similar acts in future.— ( Hear, hear.) If a person's object were to prevent the assault of an adversary he thought he would not be content with warding off the blow aimed at him, but that sound policy required that he should disable his opponent from further mischief—(Hear.) Now, what had led to this aggression? He did not believe that any Roman Catholic Member of that House had explained that any religious ne cessity had existed for the important change made by the Papal brief. (Hear, hear.) It might be supposed that a full explanation upon this point would be g !reia in the not very reasonable, calm, or temperate appeal of the new cardinal to the reason and good feeling of the English pe pie. There, if anywhere, would surely be found an explanation of the reli gious wants of the Roman Catholic people, and so able a reasoner would certainly not lose sight of the importance of such an argument in favour of the Pope. Cardinal Wise man alleged that the object was to introduce ' the real and complete code of the Church;" that for this purpose the Ro man Catholics must have a hierarchy. He said that the canon law was inapplicable under vicars apostolic, that be sides, there were many points that required to be synodically adjusted, and that, without a metropolitan and suffragans, a provincial syno 1 was out of the question. There might have been other motives. Was there n thing in the circumstances cf the present time which made the Pope be lieve that he might succeed in advancing his power and authority in this country ? There bad been many deployable defections from the Established Church •- many had embraced some of the most characteristic doctrines of the Church of Rome, and some conscientious but ill-judging men, were de sirous of reviving forms and ceremonies which had beconie obsolete in the Protestant Church because they di f not tend to edification. ' Others wished to restore the g neous cere monies of the Roman Catholic religion. The language used by some et our statesmen, too, might have conveyed to the " c ope the impression that any interference on his part in creating a new order of bishops would not be resented.— (Hear, hear.) Above all, he believed a misapprehension had been entertained with regard to the depth of the Protestant feeling which ran with so strong a current through the life blood of the country. He was entitled to assume that it was not from any ieligious necessity this step had been taken, and, therefore, so far as England was concerned, we were called on to resist the aggression, and by means of legii lation to prevent the intrusion of any foreign autho rity upon us in the manner proposed. But Ireland had, for a long series of years, possessed her Roman Catholic bishops with the titles of Irish sees. The use of these titles had.heen permitted and sanctioned, and therefore the Government, after having by their connivance justified the course pursued by the Irish bishops, had no right now to extend their legis lation to the sister island.—(Hear, hear.) His Right Hoe. Friend (Sir J. Graham) in the course of his remarkable speech said that in 1792 an Irish Act had passed for banish ing all the archbishops and bishops from Ireland, but that, so strong was the feeling in favour of complete religious toleration, that next year, in 1793, that Act was repealed. He was astonished to hear that statement, and thought it right to apply to his Right Hon. Friend to know on what authority he made it. His Right Hon. Friend said that the Duke of Wellington, in the debate of 1829, made this asser. tion in the presence of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Eldon, and Lord Tenterden, and that he (Sir J. Graham) thought him self entitled in consequence to consider it correct. Now he (Sir F. Thesiger) had since satisfied himself that no such Act was passed in 1792 -- (Cheers)—and he need not say that no Act was passed in 1793,,t0 repeal that Act.—(Hear, hear.) By the Act of 1782. Roman Catholic ecclesiastics were per mitted to remain in Ireland upon registering themselves. But there was a most extraordinary exception in the eighth section, —that no person was entitled to the benefit of that Act who assumed or took any ecclesiastical rank or title whatever.—( Hear, hear.) In the Act of 1795, on which the college of Maynooth was founded and endowed, the Roman Catholic prelates were named after all the laity, and they were named, not by their titles as bishops, but as doctors of divinity.—(Hear. hear.) The practice, therefore, of assum ing ecclesiastical titles was entirely contrary to law In deed, the Acts against the assumption of ecclesiastical rank and title in Ireland by Roman Catholics were stronger than any passed in England. It was said that, because by the Act of 1829 a penalty was attached to the assumption of titles of particular sees, that Act was a virtual repeal, as to all other titles, of all the Acts passed up to that time. But every lawyer knew that one affirmative Act did not repeal another, unless one was irreconcilable with the other. (Hear, hear.) The Roman Ca , holic B , quests Act of 1844 recognized the status of the Roman Catholic bishops ; and in 1847 Earl Grey, as Colonial Secretary, wrote the following circular to the governors of colonies: " But, as Parliament has by a recent Act (that relating to Charitable Bequests in Ireland) formally recognised the rank of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates by giving them pre cedence immediately after the prelates of the Established Church of the same degree, . . . it has appeared to her Majesty's Government that it is their duty to conform to the rule thus laid down by the Legislature." No doubt the House was perfectly familiar with the Chari table Bequests Act. Now, the Legislature laid down in that Act no regulations with respect to Roman Catholic prelates --(Hear) —and therefore the Noble Lord was acting under a complete mistake in exercising authority of a very important description by giving that rank to Roman Catholic bishops in the col vies—a rank which, he thought, corresponded wi h that which the Legislature prescribed.—(Hear, hear.) True, there was a Commission issued under that Act by the Queen in Council, giving to the Roman Catholic prelates certain rank, corresponding to their style and title; but it was quite unnecessary to say, that although the Queen could give any rank or precedence to any one of her subjects as she pleased, yet the rank given to the Roman Catholic prelates under that Commission applied only to that Commission, and did not extend beyond it.—(Cries of " Hea- ' hear.") It, therefore, seemed to him, that the Bishop of Sydney was justified in the opinion he expressed, as stated in the papers recently laid before the House, that the mere fiat of the Colonial Secretary, without the sanction of the Sove reign, was not sufficient to confer that rank on the colonial bishops. (Hear.) So stood the question as to the assump tion of titles in Ireland, and he apprehended there was nothing in these historical details that could justify any one in saying that the situation of Ire‘and was so pe culiar and so distinct from that of England that the blow which had been aimed at the Queen's sovereigty in England, and which was a warning to us to defend that sovereignty against a similar blow in any part of her do minions, was to prevent us from taking that warning and from extending our legislation so far as we thought ne• cessary for protecting that sovereignty in every part of the Queen's dominions.—(Hear, hear.) And was there nothing in what had occurred which rendered the legislation im perative ? The Pope knew perfectly well that the difficulty of the Noble Lord —as it had been the dif ficulty of every Government—was the kingdom of Ireland.—(llear, hear.) He knew perfectly well there might be danger to the Noble Lord if ho extended his legislation to the sister kingdom. What did he do? In the very midst of the popular ferment he created a Bishop of Ross.— (Hear, hear.) He threw down the gauntlet of defiance—(Hear) and he compelled the Noble Lord either to abandon that which was his duty—(Hear, hear)—or to involve himself in all the difficulties which had occurred to him by affirming boldly, and as he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought justly, that the measure should extend to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) And, n , how was the la w with res p ect to the introduction of bulls ei up to the year 1829, and after that period? We had in their perfect integrity certain Acts of Parliament to pre vent the introduction of bulls into , this co9ntry—one being th as early as the reign of Richardcalled the ha S d taht e i e te n of Prcemunire, and the statute of which so frequently referred to. The and sufficiently edEmnancip protectedationAct waspass t e h d ia , but those statutes remained, kingdom from the intr usion of a similar character , and ren g o d f e a r n in y P u a n p n a e l e b es u s l a ls r3 o . r an d y oc o u f m th e o n s t e s b wereut, after f not ter tandea year pted r to ey t a h l e P s i iateueatstiaonndoefx a eg r ua ro ti :e r s s t i a v n h t ic k h i , perhaps, ngdom; f l one of inconsiderate kin mesa a 1829, we began a 'syste m whichndbiendwualgseanome.o—st(affreaaidr,thoeacra.l)l against Papal encroachment. securities that had existed _ We one by one removed from our statute-book the different ( d t e e n e r n . ) t I e d W o e u r i brokecitadel, d e y w to e dvantaee of our disabled con ditionwanndthwee abffaottrldeeindeant;reoefoopul?rorftourtnsi—t any person disposed to take a to march in and take possession.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord, ev en un d er the disabled circ umstances in which he was pla ce d, never ap p r ehended soy such encroachment as this that had taken place, and the words of the Noble L )rd were rather remarkable. In August, 1846, he said : th i s ' Let us similar to Srsupposethat thosethere is we have heardsomebulli ofntro in formerducedinto days. Let us suppose, though it is almost extravagant to suppose it, that the re was any attem pt of the Pope to assert any sovereign authority in these realms, or to interfere wit h would b the Queen's auth( rity, my belief is that no such bu ll wou e observed by any Roman Cath o li c , b u t that it would be a dead letter; and thus much I am sure of, that if any person acted bul contrary to his allegiance in consequence of such a 1, _, he would be punishable according to the laws of this country. —(Hear.) Now, a brief, which was equivalent to a bull, bad been introduced. The Noble Lord himself bed characte rised that document, and it might be as well to put the t Noble Lord's celebrated letter in juxtaposition with that cele brated passage from his speech in the year 1846, to see how completely he was deceived and misled by a blind confidence in the forbearing intention of the Papal See—(Hear, hear), ; —and how little the Noble Lord was prepared for this attempt. ' The Noble Lord said in his letter "There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Rome—a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a claim to solo and undivided sway which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catho lic times." Well, this brief unexpectedly, and to the astonishment of the Noble Lord, made its appearance on our shores. There was a strong popular ferment throughout the country. The Noble Lord saw the rising storm; he watched its progress, and at last, after some little deliberation, he turned his face in the direction to which the popular gale was blow ing, and issued the letter from which he had just read the passage. Now, the Noble Lord in that letter stated that the law would be very carefully examined, in order that it might be brought intooperation against any person who had offended it. The people exulted in such a champion of their rights and their dearest interests—in such a defender of their faith as the Noble Lord, and they reposed in perfect security on the promises of the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) The law, it was admitted, was sufficient for the purpose of punishing this aggression—that had been admitted in this debate by the Noble Lord and other Hon. Members. Why, then, was ILA the law carried into effect?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said it was considered not to be expedient to carry out the law, because it had in a degree become obsolete, and might be regarded as rather a harsh proceeding if old Acts of Parliament, that had been buried a long time, and were almost dead letters in our statute book, were to be revived for the purpose of carrying them into operation in conse quence of what had occurred. He should have thought, then, that inasmuch as those Acts of Parliament, particu larly the Act of Elizabeth, had been under consideration in 1844 Sand 180, they would have given theta a modern dress, LONDON, and made them speak modern language—(dear) — and that the Noble Lord would have considered those laws were n a g o g t precisely Butobl ,eht st it b n a d d might te h oh a l e v o b r e L e i n done?applied o e thhaids i. left the law in precise'y the same unsettled and unsatisfac , tory state.—(Hear.) Were those Acts to be applicable to any future aggression, or were they to be considered obsolete ? The Noble Lord had really ' done more injury to the law as It existed in the statute-book, and also to the common law, by the mode in which he had dealt with this subject, than by any other course that could possibly be conceived.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then considered it was not proper to carry out those laws against this aggression. Now, let the House see what was the nature of that aggression, and hav ing ascertained that, let them see what was the measures of the Noble Lord to protect us from that aggression, and to satisfy the wishes and desires of the people.—(Hear, hear.) Every one who had spoken on the Protestant side of the the e es p ti a o pal nhhandll.adrtithtaedd beenthehapurgovhetdy,ahnedthimoopgehrito,us mostton tone of sa tisfactorily, that the Papal power being a compound of tem poral and spiritual authority, so closely connected and inti ameaptaerlayteb l t e h n e d e o d n , that almost other—whether t herimpossible thisto detach t and o he regarded as a spiritual or a temporal ac t, or an ecclesiastical e from it w the as act, which was an act of a mixed nature, there could be no doubt that the tone indicated at least the intention to extend sovereign power and authority over the kingdom of England ; and that very expression, " kingdom of England," appeared to him to be very significant as regarded this Papal aggression. An observation was made, ho believed by the Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury, that throughout this brief the Pope condescended only to speak of the kingdom of England, and when he spoke of the t hurch in England he spoke of the Church of England. Now as to the title of" the kingdom of England," was it used by mis take or design ? They could hardly think it was by mistake, because the Pope and his advisers could not be ignorant that in the year 1706 the kingdom of England ceased to exist as a separate kingdom—that it was united with Scot land, and became the kingdom of Great Britain. Then was it by design? He could not help thinking so, inasmuch as in one of the shameful periods of oar history the kingdom of England became a feudal dependency of the Pope, and he be lieved it was an inflexible rule of the Papal see, that what ever was once annexed to the patrimony of St. Peter could never be separated from it.—( Hear, hear.) He was dis posed, therefore, to think that the Pope had used that style and title to designate the kingdom to which his Papal bull applied, and it was, in his (Sir F. Thesiger's) mind signifi cant of the purpose. But then it was said by the Hon. and Learned Member for Plymouth in his admirable speech, that this proceeding on the part of the Pope was only the natural ecclesiastical development of the Roman Catholic Church, and his Hon. and Learned Friend said, that inas much as we had once tolerated that Church, we should be inconsistent with ourselves unless we allowed'that Church to expand, and grow, and develop itself to its fullest complete ness and extent. Now, what was the natural development of the Roman Catholic Church? Nothing short of universal dominion.—(Hear, hear:) And, lest it should be supposed that Protestants were excluded from that universal rule which the Roman Catholic Church arrogated for itself, he had found very recently a passage he would read to the House from a book which vas a divinity class book at the College of Maynooth in the present day, and in which that princi ple was stated in the fullest manner:— " Ecelesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes apostatos, hereticos, et schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jam pertineant." That was merely as to schismatics, heretics, and apostates. But there was another passage : " Societas Protestantium sese a schismatis reatu excusare non potest." It was perfectly evident, therefore, from comparing the two passages, that universal rule being claimed over all schis matics, and Protestants being included in that category, the rule applied to them. See, then, the condition in which we should be if the argument of his Honourable and Learned Friend were correct.—(Hear, hear.) We could not ad mit the principle of toleration in the smallest degree with out admitting the right of the Roman Catholic Church to expand itself to the fullest extent of that claimed authority; and unless we could say to the Roman Catho lics, " We will admit toleration to a certain extent; we will grant all that is necessary for the exercise of your reli gion ; so far shalt thou go and no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed"—unless we could say that, we must be open to all the terrible consequences that might ensue.— (Hear, hear.) Well, then, what was the result he should draw from his Honourableand Learned Friend's argument? He was afraid it was one which he hoped they never would come to, that the toleration of the Roman Catholic religion was entirely out of the question.—(Hear, hear.) Then it was said, why was there all this fuss ?—it was the most harmless change that could possibly be imagined—it was a mere change of vicars-apostolic to a hierarchy of bishops. If the change was so harmless what meant the note of triumph raised by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral ? What meant the fervid glow of figurative language with which he described that change? He said " Your beloved country has received a place among the fair Churches which, normally constituted, form the splendid aggregate of the Catholic communion. Catholic England has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long vanished, and begins now anew its course of regularly adjusted action round the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of vigour." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, he would rather take the view of the Cardinal upon this point, and, to his mind, those . were words of ominous import. (Hear, hear.) Then, it was said they ought not to be dismayed on this occasion, because the Pope had given up a portion of the authority he previously possessed; that vicars-apostolic were creatures of his will, and that, when he had established his hierarchy, they would be entirely independent of him. If the Pope had given up any portion of his power, it was a little con trary to the usual action of the Papal see— (Hear, hear) — and he should rather think it right on that principle to use the phrase of our neighbours—" reculer pour mieux sauter." But this hierarchy was to be the means of introducing, not the canon law as it had been recognised by our common law for a long series of years, but the canon law of the Church —the vital principle of which was, as he believed, an ultimate appeal to the Pope.—(Cries of " Hesr, hear.") Again, they would have bishops dependent on the Propaganda at Rome. He could not help thinking, there fore, that there was a mere semblance of resignation of any portion of the Papal power by the Pope, and that after this hierarchy should be established, as he trusted it never would be—(Hear, heat) the Pope would be more powerful than ever. (Hear, hear.) But suppose the Pope should have given up a portion of his power, what consolation was that to us? We were just in the same situation, and had still to guard against encroachment, whether it was the encroach ment of the Pope, or of the Church of which he was the head. - (Hear, hear.) That being the condition in which we stood, what was it that the Noble Lord proposed as an important measure to avert all those con sequences? The Noble Lord, as it appeared to him, had given the character of h's own Bill. The Noble Lord slid, in the year 1846, that "as to pr.venting persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more ab surd and puerile than to keep up such distinctions." Well, he turned to the Noble Lord's Bill, and he found that it proposed to prevent the assumption of particular ecclesias tical titles, so that, to adopt the Noble Lord's own expression, he had given to the desires of the public, a Bill which was absurd and puerile."—(Hear.) Now. he begged the House to consider that if, as the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had.told them, the Duke of Wellington in 1829 considered the 24th section of the 10th of George IV. as no security whatever—if this was the case at a time when all the Acts of Parliament for the protection of Protestantism were in full vigour, and were armed with all the penalties, how could we expect, now that all those Acts were ceprived of their force, that any such Act as the present could be of the smallest use? The Noble Lord must be perfectly aware that it would be perfectly fu tile for preventing the Acts which it proposed to provide against. He had heard that the late Mr. O'Connell was in the habit of saying that he could drive a coach and six through most modern Acts of Parliament. He (Sir F. Thesiger) was perfectly satisfied that a cardinal's state car riage, he was going to say, could be driven through this Bill, but the fact was, it was too small to render that pos sible, though he was quite sure it could easily be driven over it. ( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Because, what did the Noble Lord propose? He proposed to prevent the assumption of ecclesiasti c al titl es . N ow h e wou ld j ust f e W s saen e d s d t Westminster," i ur n .p s cp t e ou r al , el ' e ' np b a u rs t . av tookvni s d e c nic a a l a l r e ne d t ro b e i t mu signrn" eh : n d s ei answer, fn a s l w, A pe r ar e ,o h l b a i nc s d h ul o put this case. Suppose Dr. Cullen a dd resse d D r . Wi seman p e d n o d , "Archbishop of Armagh," but took care to sign himself " Nicholas se isernan," tnis would be no infringement of the law, because, in this transaction, there would be no assump tion of titles on the part of either party. The Bill of the Noble Lord was, therefore, so weak and so flimsy that it re • quired only the feeblest casuistry to break through it.— (Cheers.) His Hon. and Learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General had both stated that the Bill would prevent synodical action, and, of course, they would not have brought in a Bill to do so if they had not had that intention. Now he had some doubt whether the first clause would have that effect. He would bring the Government, there fore, to this test:—To prevent any doubt en the point would the Government introduce a clause specifically pre venting synodical action ?—(Cheers.) And here he came again to the extraordinary course which was pursued by the Goverdment with respect to this Bill. The House must as sume that it was only after the most careful and guarded de liberation that the clauses were framed which were intended to have so extensive an operation; and yet the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been compelled to say that not only did the Bill not ex press in terms what the Government meant, but that it actually expressed what they had never meant—(Bear, hear) - for the Right Hon. Gentleman said they had disco vered that if the second section of the Bill was allowed to continue they would operate to prevent measures of ordina tion and other documents of that description from having legal validity, the consequences of which would be very serious ; and also, that if the third section was retained it would prevent bequests and endowments being left to Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops. Now, he (Sir Frederick Thesiger) was disposed to think that the legal opinion which had been read to the House by the Hon. Member for Dundalk, to the effect that the opera tion of the second clause was involved •in the first —because, inasmuch as the first clause prohibited the assumption of titles, and made the assumption of them subject to a penalty —that, as a penalty always implied a prohibition, and a pro hibited act was always void in law, therefore any act done by Roman Catholic bishops under a prohibited title would be an act utterly and entirely void.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the third section, he was disposed to think that under the Bequests Act there might be this distinction—that 'supposing a bequest made to trustees and their successors in such terms that there would be a sufficient designation of persons independently of the prohibited titles, the bequest would be considered good in spite of the prohibited titles.-- (Ha .. h ea r.) But, however this might be, he f e lt cer t a i n that die Noble Lord, with respect to the effect of the second clause being involved in the first, was placed in this extraor dinary dilemma, that he must ei' her vote against the third reading of his own Bill, or allow the Bill to be passed which contained provisions which he did not intend. Now he did no t see how it was possible for the Noble Lord to escape from this dilemma. Yes, there was one way. The Noble Lord might intro duce into the first clause an exception with re spect to the assumption of titles in all cases in which there was the legal ex ercise of any authori t y , the c n sequence of which would be, that the exception would be so enormously large as to swallow up the entire Bill, because the clause the innocent assumption of titles w ou ld then only apply to by Roman Catholic • s when they went into society and were announced by their titles.—(hear, hear, and a laugh.) Seeing then, that he considered the Bill utterly futile, what I was th'e cours e he intended topursue ? Ho anticipated that his statement would be received with a laugh of ridicule when he said that he meant to vote for the second reading..... (Laughter.) And why? Because he thought that legisla tion was absolutely necessary, and because, bad as it was, he preferred the minimum of legislation proposed by the Noble Lord to having no legislation at all.—(Hear, hear.) But he meant to vote for the second reading for a still more important object--because it afforded an opportunity to these who thought, like him, that the Bill was not what it ought to be, to endeavour to emend it in Committee. —(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Frien d the Mem ber for liidhurst (Mr. Walpole - ) had slightly sketched out hid 31"i9nof what the Dill ought to have been; and be - • WEDNESDAY agreed with his lion. and Learned Friend that, if the Noble Lord were sincere in the view he had taken of the Papal ag gression, he ought to have come forward with a Bill denoun cing it in explicit terms as a thing opposed to the soverei , nty of the Queen, and to have introduced a clause prohibiting all persons from acting under the Papal brief, or under any similar document, under a penalty. This, he conceived—if there was to be any correspondence between the language of the Noble Lord and his acts—between his promises and his performances—was the sort of measure which the Noble Lord should have proposed. He ventured to think that the public would be satisfied with nothing else. —(Cheers.) He was perfectly satisfied that if they proceeded in a vacillating, hesitating, and temporizing course they would entirely fail; that if they touched " the nettle danger" timidly, they would only be stung the more ; but that if they grasped it boldly it would be perfectly harmless.—(Cheers.) He felt that this wa- the first of a series of formidable encroachments. He believed that if they did not take their stand in every breach they would entail a fearful struggle upon their toes terity. He was too sensible' of the advantage's which we had derived from the light and liberty of the Reformation which had been won for them by the labour, the danger, and the blood of their ancestors, not to endeavour, as far as he could, to transmit them unimpaired to the latest genera tion.,.- (Cheers.) Sir J. GRAHAM explained that on compering the report of the Duke of Wellington's speech of 1829, which be had quoted from Hansard the other evening, with the report in the Mirror of Parliament, he found that the date of 1792, therein referred to, was a misprint for 1782, and that the Duke's words were, according to the Mirror of Parliament, that an Act having been passed in 1793, which was under stood to repeal the Act of 1782, the consequence had been that the practice el' assuming titles had greatly increased. The Right Hon. Baronet added, that the Act of 1782 was intended for the relief generally of the Roman Catholics, but a proviso was added to the eight' clause (which he read) to the effect that the benefits d it would not be extended to any Popish ecclesiastic who shou ld as anme any ecclesiastical rank or title whatever. Mr. GLADSTONE said he had listened, as ineeed he was satisfied the House had listened, with that admiration which he had never failed to experience to the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend. The views of his Hon. did Learned Friend were, however, unmistakeable. They should feel obliged for their disclosure, but he thought it. VAS well that the House, which the lion. and Learned Gentlenan had in vited to enter on a new 'path, which no man among them might see the end of, should at least consider the direction in which it tended. The course which Bet Noble and Learned Gentleman too plainly indicated, was a destruction of the principles of religious freedom in their a)plication to Roman Catholic subjects. His Hon. and Learned Friend had distinctly adverted to the necessity of introdteing clauses into the Bill for preventing synodal action ; bet he believed that no gentleman would stand up in that Souse and say that voting' for such a 'clause he was a friend for religious freedom to the Roman Catholics. His own plat for address ing the House at that period of the debate was, that he was the only Member representhog:an Engreh university,- and a large portion of the highest clergy, wio had not yet ape ken, ,and-he had the misfortune to stadttia opposition to the sentiments and judgment of all his oolltagues.—(Hear, hear.) He should pass ,by many matters *Bedded to in the debate, and come at once to the consideratior of that which struck him as being most important and- fopcible. He did not pretend to make light of the dangers to, wiich the Church of England was exposed. He differed from lie Hon. Mem ber who expressed an apprehension, in which he (Mr. Glad stone) by no means shared, for the freedom of the Queen. — (Hear.) Now he had no apprehension fer the freedom of. the Queen. Looking at their respective iftidtkutions, and at taching full importance to the blessings OP free education, he believed that the constitution of England was strong enough to resist any aggression which might be perpetrated, or meditated, or intended by any power; temporal or spi ritual. He entered his protest against all. attempts to meet spiritual dangers of the Church by temporal legislation. The principle they had now to deal with waaplain.—(Hear.) If the Roman Church by its authorities, whfaher the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, or anybody else, continued such an interference with temporal affairs as weilld not be per mitted in the case of another religious bay, then he said they were not only,entitled, but they were bound to inter fere.— (Hear.) But until the exercise of tlAt interference— until they overstepped that line which war' drawn, not for them only, but for all men, between matters spiritual and temporal—until that was done, they had do right to inter fere. They had no right to deny to them that which they gave to any other body.—(Hear, hear.) lleo would briefly advert to that which had been well said the other night by his Right Honourable Friend the Member for Ripon in regard to the language used both in the brief of the Pope, and in the letter of Cardinal Wiseman, with respect to these ecclesiastical appointmeitte. He confessed that that language had not only been impertinent, but of a vaunting and a boastful character... (Cheers.) He would not say that it had been adopted iwith any intention of wounding the feelings of the people .of England, but it was certainly language of which complaint might most justly be made, and couched too, in strong terms.—(lronical cheers, and counter cheering.) It was net enough that the language of those documents should be - offensive to justify their interference; but the act itself should warrant it, and therefore the question of the wisdom of thli legislation must stand or fall by the substance of the ace iqelf. He did not stop to inquire whether the Pope had ddoe all that might have been expected from him. In poineof principle, and in point of prudence he could conceive that there were other steps that it would have been wise for him to have taken. He did not consider, either whether there had been a breach of the law of nations ; but if that law had been broken, in his opinion nothing could be more disparaging than for the Go vernment to propose, and for that House tp entertain a mea sure proceeding in respect of that breach of the law of nations by imposing penalties. And that letter to the Bishop of Dur ham was a letter, certainly, which the Noble Lord never would have demeaned himself to write.—(Cheers and inter ruption.) Perhaps he was in fault. He did not mean to say that the Noble Lord had done himself any dishonour by that letter— (Ironical cheers)—but that he would have demeaned himself if, when he wrote it, if he thought there had been a breach of the law of nations. (Cheers.) It was certainly a matter of regret that the Noble Lord should have made his complaint, not in the regular way, but by a letter to the Bishop of Durham.— (Cheers and laughter.) Admitting that in the abstract there might be a wrong, which he could not exactly define, he must say that no ground whatever had been made out by Government to prove that our Crown had been wronged, and that the independence of the nation had been violated. What he contended for was, that they should have proceeded by diplomatic agency. -((sear, hear.) But what was the answer of the Government to that? Only this, that a clause was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill, which prevented the Pope from sending his agent to this country. But was that e reason why they should not send an envoy to the Pope, to complain that he had invaded our national independence, an d insulted the powers of the Crown?—(Cries. of "Hear hear.") For was there a man w h o would say that the Pope would have been bold enough to turn back an envoy bringing a well-founded complaint of that nature? That, however, was a matter affecting the conduct of the Government. They had now this Bill before them, and the question was, what had they to do with it ? And however wrong, or however right, the Government might be, they must now make up their minds to the question whether this Bill should or should not be read a second time.—( Hear, hear.) His Learned Friend who had just sat down was eager in denouncing the act of the Pope, and in calling for redress; but he had not heard a man who had shown by reasoning that this was a Bill adequate to the purposes in view.— (Cheers.) No one had abused the measure more than they who had made the most ingenious speeches in its favour. For example , wh a t did the Hight Hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General say? That we had a law to prevent the introduction of bulls, in which respect an act of illegality had been committed by the Popes agents; but that there was no law to prevent the parcelling out of the kingdom into dioceses, and as a matter of course, the assumption of territorial titles from those dioceses. Therefore an act of ille gality had been committed, in respect of which no step was taken, and another act which was not illegal, but was inno cent, they proposed to legislate for by a penal Bill. Thus they left the illegal act unscathed, while the legal act of the creation of dioceses, and the usurpation of titles, they were going to make illegal by an ex post facto law.—(Cheers.) How much has been said about Ireland, but poor Scotland had scarcely been mentioned.—(Bear, hear.) And there WAS not time to go properly into the question of Scotland as affected by the provisions of this Bill. But when they reached the Committee, which he was bold enough to think they might still be able to reach (C hee rs and taughter)— perhaps the subject of Scotland might come under discussion, and assuredly it would be a subject well worthy o f conside ration.—(Hear.). The Government expressed - their convic tion to be, that, in spite of all difficulties, it was their:abso lute duty to adopt a system of equal legislation with regard to England and Ireland, because the great constitutional doctrine on which they raised their trivial and petty super structure, was susceptible of equal application to the two people. Well, what said the Attorney-General? He (Hr. Gladstone) presumed that, in giving his opinion on the sub ject, he meant precisely what he said. But this was the doctrine in his mind —considering that this was in the main an extension to England of that section of the Catholic Emancipation Act, now only practically operative in Ireland. He said it was true, that in Ireland that section hied not been called into activity, but that in England the case would be different. It was intended to put that machinery into opera tion, he said, and, in fact, that that should be tolerated in Ire land which was not endured ;in England. He might state the views that were expressed in introqucing . this' law; but if that law was to be a d ead letter in Ireland, while in Eng land it was to be a living principle, and a source of penal proceedings, what now became of their flourishes about the supremacy of the Queen, and the equality of law in one country and in the other?—(Loud cries of 6' Hear, hear," and cheers.) But what was the Bill supposed to be, and what was it in itself ? Could any one say what its precise effect would be ?• One principal object of the Bill was supposed to be the prevention of synodal action. He understood the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to say that it would not prevent synodal action. He un derstood the Solicitor-General as distinctly to say, in the last passage of his speech, that the Bill with its one clause would prevent synodal action.—(Cheers and laughter.) But he would pass that by.--(Hear, hear.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that he said that Roman Catholics themselves put it upon the ground that without territorial title there could be no synodal action. The Bill took away territorial title, and upon' the showing of the Roman Catholics themselves synodal action fell to the ground. Mr. GLADSTONE—That was the climax of the Hon, and Learned Gentleman's speech, to show the stringency of the Bill, in support of which view he was obliged to take ad vantage of the state of things represented by the Catholics themselves. But what was the effect of the omi ss i on o f th e second and third clauses? On that point they had had the assistance of many lawyers there. They were unfortunately laymen. " Unfortunately," did he say ?—(Cheers, and laughter.) What assistance had they had from the lawyers? The Attorney-General said that when the second and third clauses had been expunged, the first clause would have the same effect. An Hon. and Learned Member, on the other hand, had produced the opinions of the most distinguished lawyers, that the second and third clauses would stand in the way of the first.—(Cheers, and laughter.) That was pretty well in the way of contradiction ; but it mended the matter much when his Hon. and Learned Friend, who had just sat down, came in with an authority and told them, as distinctly, that neither the one was right or the other ; but the second clause would be involved in the first, and that the third clause would not.—(llear.) But this was a Bill in tended to maintain the rights of the Queen and the inde pendence of the nation. Why was it to maintain the rights of the Queen's Crown? Who had offended them? A foreign power. And what was their mode of dealing with the foreign power? Why to impose certain penalties on her Majesty's subjects. Did that Bill as it stood give them any coherent idea of, or refer them to any principle? He would have yielded it a comparative approbation if it had referred even to a false principle. But there was none such. It was a Bill to repress foreign authority; then why did it not confine itself to Protestant foreign titles?—(Hear ) Why were certain domestic titles repressed by that Bill ? (Hear. ) That was not so remote a case. In the last session of Par liament, or the last but one, a petition was presented to the House of Lords by Lord Brougham, and was supported by many Peer s , i n w hi c h ma ny gentlemen denominated Eng lish Episcopalians residing in Scotland, prayed the House of Lords to give them episcopal government. Such a Bill, had EVENING, it been introduced, would have been rendered nugatory by that of the Noble Lord. The Legislature exempted the Scottish Episcopalians from this restraint, and now the Noble Lord was practically imposing it. He could not accept the exemption with gratitude. He was acquainted with many excellent Scotch Episcopalians, but he had no desire that an exemption by civil privileges an: toleration should be 'created for one class of men from which others precisely in the same circumstances were to be excluded.—(Cheers.) But did that Bill prohibit territorial* titles? They prohibited epis copal titles, but not territorial titles. There were others who divided the country into districts besides Episcopalians, and Wesleyans divided it into circuits.—(Cheers and cries of "Oh, oh !") He knew the meaning of that cry, and would deal with it in its proper place. Only one thing at a time.— (Hear, hear.) He was saying that they did not prevent ter- ' ritorial titles, because not only were the Wesleyans, but be cause in England and Ireland there were bodies called Presbyters and Synods, having just as much territorial titles as these bishops of the Pope.—(" No, no," and cheers.) There were in Scotland persons professing the same religion as the people of England, and . in England persons professing the Presbyterian religion of Scotland. They divided the country into districts, assigning, in the first instance, epis copal titles to bishoprics, as, for example, the Bishop of Glasgow, while in England there was the Presbytery of London, strictly as binding as any in Scotland. If they made the distinction because in many countries in Europe bishoprics were connected with the temporal interests, the Presbytery was, on the same ground, open to the same ob jection. He took the Bill according to its professions. Its proposed object was to prevent Romish aggression. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs regards it as an extension of the Act of 1829. He protested against such a desecration of it. The clause of the Act of 1829 went to defend them against the usurpation of the ultra existing sees, well known in the House, and carrying with them many most important incidents.—( Hear, hear.) The person who should assume the title of the Bishop of London would be a pretender to a title endowed with great advantages and temporal rights. The question now arose whether they would allow a title to be assumed, which interfered with no one and invaded no rights, and represent it as an extension of the Act of 1829. It was for them to prove that the rescript of the Pope was of the temporal character they described it to be, but he had. heard. nothing.which proved that to be the cass. Of the parties who defended this Bill, or rather the opinion that there ought to be legislation on the subject—some said the Bill went too far, while others said it did not go far enough. These parties were involved in an inconsistency in defend ing this position, when they described what took place in foreign countries, where they said that the people were re duced to the lowest stage of degradation from the influence of the Roman Catholic religion, and at the same time ' alleged that they had no intention to prevent the fair progress of that religion. The argument went too far. If they had to contend with a spiritual system, they must meet the strength of a spiritual system with the strength pf another spiritual system, and not by a penal enactment. — (Hear, hear.) It was argued by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that there was in this case the distinc tion that these titles were conferred by a foreign power. Well, he would inquire how far would this carry them? When they had persons, subjects of this country, who ac knowledged this spiritual authority, how were they to in terfere with them? He would not deny that there might be temporal matters under the guise of spiritual affai-s, but they could not say because they were derived from foreign authority that they ought to be deprived of them. They should show that they were not spiritual matters, but temporal, under the pretence of being spiritual. When they had arrived at that conclusion, then there would arise a reason for their interference. No one had as yet said that the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics should be restricted. The Attorney-General distinctly maintained that they were entitled to equal freedom. Then he asked the question whether this act was spiritual or temporal ? Religious liberty required that Parliament should not step within the sphere of religion?. He did not mean to say that it had not a right to interfere in the affairs of the Es tablished Church, which derived advantages and privileges from the State; but the right was so limited with regard to religious bodies uneudowed and unconnected with the State. What, he would ask, was the amount of the proof adduced that the rescript of the Pope was of a temporal character? The only case you test was that set forth by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, who stated that the appoint ment of bishops was not a spiritual but a temporal act. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had said that was the opinion of Mr. Twiss. Mr. GLADSTONE, in continuation, said he should like to know if the Noble Lord adopted that opinion.—(Laughter.) If the appointment. then of bishops was a spiritual act, they had no right to interfere. If it was a temporal act, why did they exempt the bishops of the English Church in Scot land, and not place the nomination of those bishops in the Crown. He wished to see how the Government could extricate themselves from that dilemma. He called upon them either to strike out that exemption, or to place the nomination in the hands of the Crown. The Attorney- General spoke of excommunications, and the deprivation of benefices. If parties in these matters went beyond the sphere of spiritual matters, they would have a right to deal with it. He would ask, however, were the Roman Catholics the only parties who used excommuications ? They were common in other religious communities. They were re sorted to by the Dissenting bodies, and were used by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and in the Free Church. What he wanted was not proofs of insulting language hav ing been used, or that the Roman Catholic religion was exclusive, but what he wanted was proof of the temporal character of the rescript, and if that could not be furnished, there was not a shadow of reason for the principle laid down for this Bill.--(Hear, hear.) Then there was the canon law of which so much had been said. He would take the canon law of Boniface the Eighth and Honorius the Ninth. The Attorney-General disclaimed the opinion that this Bill would exclude synodal action. He would call upon Hon. Gentleman who were prepared to vote in favour of this Bill because it would prevent syncdal action, to re collect when they went home that this Bill would not ex clude the canon law. However this law might increase the power of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, that was their affair • (Hear, hear)—and there would be no reli gious freedom if Parliament undertook to interfere, and re gulate the, internal disputes of religious bodies. Religious freedom consisted in the right of parties to frame a system for themselves, from Mormonism upwards ; and if, when parties in these bodies found themselves rubbed and fretted, they were to come to Parliament to set them right, their re ligious freedom would be endangered.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Roman Catholics were free men, and would act for themselves.—( Hea-.):They did not want y our protection. They repudiated it. What they wanted was, that you should let them alone.—(Coeers from the Irish Members.) He might ask, what hal the Roman Catholics now? They bad that which was considered the very worst part of this canon law. That which gives too much power to the Pope, and does not infuse enough of the constitutional principle into the Church. The system was susceptible of the constitutional principle. In a hierarchy bishops had privileges as against the authority of the Pope. The Pope would not deprive a diocesan bishop without that, and an incumbent was in the same position with regard to his bishop ; whereas at present the Pope was, with regard to the Catholics of this country, complete master without any limit.—(Hear, hear.) Every man was now subject to his arbitrary authority and unli mited power, presenting a power as completely arbitrary as could exist.—(llear, hear.) He could remove a bishop or priest at his will. This arbitrary power could not be better expressed than in the words of the Canon of Boniface VIII. and Honorius IX., which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred to, and which declared— " That it is necessary for salvation to believe that everybody is bound to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Wherever bishops were introduced, it must tend alike to equal rights and to equal organisation, and give a certain degree of freedom even as against the Pope.—(Hear.) He confessed it wounded him, as a member of the Church of England, to see this hierarchy spreading over the country, but that was a totally different matter from invoking the secular arm.—(Hear.) He might be wrong, but he supposed that if proper investigation were made, it would be found that the law was. 'hat all ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be vested in the Crown. If that were so, no exception could be made in favour of particular sects. The Toleration Act might be an exception, but he apprehended that that would authorise the exercise of no such power, for instance, as that used by the Wesleyan Conference, when they deter mined upon the expulsion of Mr. Dunn and Mr. Griffiths. In 1725 Bishop Gibson wrote a letter to the Duke of New castle, then Secretary of State, representing that certain ministers of Massachuse•ts had intimated to the Governor of that colony their intention to meet in synod. The Duke of Newcastle referred the letter to Lord Hard wick, who was Attorney-General. The law officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that her Majesty's supremacy extended to the colonies, and that it was not lawful f r the clergy to meet without the Royal licence. That showed that this power to prevent the meet ing of synods extended to all sects, and even to the colonies, and those law officers, to avoid even the appearance of ad mitting the legality of the proposed synod, suggested that, if the ministers assembled, they should be dispersed by force. No Act of Parliament had been passed since to the present day giving express legality to synods. If that were so, and if this doctrine was now to be applied to the Roman Catho lics, it must be applied to all other bodies, and not to them alone. They must not have a partial and exceptional appli cation. He agreed with the Noble Lord that of late the ex treme party in the Church of Rome had gained the ascen dancy. The moderate party had been declining. He agreed with the Noble Lord upon these facts, and joined with him in sentiments of deep regret at this state of things. They thought that in opposing the introduction of a hierarchy they were endeavouring to repress Ultramontane principles. He would show them the very reverse was the fact. His assertion was that since the Reformation there had been two parties in the Roman Catholic Church, and their history was very different. Since the time of Queen Elizabeth the bulk of the clergy and laity had pursued one line of policy, and the Jesuits and the Court of Rome another. The former party, which might be called the moderate party, had ever been struggling for this measure of diocesan episcopacy. The extreme party in the Church of Rome, who were represented by the cardinals around the Pope and the Jesuits, had all along been struggling to resist this measure, and now he asked them to grapple with the facts he should give them. He would show them that since the time of Elizabeth the majority of the laity and clergy of the church of Rome had been struggling, and often with the countenance of the Government, to obtain diocesan episco pacy; and could anything be more gross than for the Go vernment now to interfere, and say we will introduce what will prevent 4 , QU, the moderate party in the Church of Rome, from succeeding? Reference had been made to Mr. Palmer, and that theologian had twitted the Catholic theologians in the discussion, by telling them, " You are no Church at all, because you have no diocesan bishops." When they wish now to have bishops, and become a regularly constituted Church, our own theologians and others seek to prevent it. The Roman Catholic laity and clergy had all along been struggling to obtain this measure with the sanction and countenance of the British Government, who had throughout opposed vicars apostolic, and encouraged the efforts to obtain diocesan episcopacy. This could be proved upon the autho rity of Mr. Dodd, and the well-known Mr. Butler, and the equally well-known Roman Catholic writer, Perrington. Directly the penal laws were repealed, the question of bishops was again sought to be raised, and efforts made to conciliate the mind of the British Government. The great mind of Pitt had a definite opinion upon this subject, and they should not be ashamed of marching under his banner. He was of an opposite opinion to the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) When he looked back to the prophetic sayings of that great man, lie found in them lessons of wisdom, which would, if considered, help them to solve many of the difficult q uestions now pressing upon them. After referring to the opinions of Mr. Pitt on the subject of the Catholic disabilities, he stated that in 1790 it was deemed advisable by the Catholics to send Mr. Hussey as a deputation to Rome, and one of the great objects Mr. Hussey had in view was to endeavour to p el a e v e e te r i ( ) 3 y wg e f e o i r ergy the_ —ofanbdisbhoep:dvieen ieordinary,dtiiet the Legislature of the change, and second. that 1 ( a "Heoai clergy—Gear, m h e e a n r t ) appointment on two grounds ; first, that the Government ap proved,would soon require th s a i t r cr t ils thing happened when e C t ; H b ?pp n rs d le e y . ,was il li e t Rome sa he endeavouredt e o facilitate withdrawn,t enhead thatrrange diocesanmest that iicars apostolic should b bishops should be appointed m their stead. clergy t il Itm might case w ht b esa thatid ett i d b i e f the bishops were appointed by greatly altered. He (Mr. Gladstone) would wish that; and • the appointment of diocesan bishops was a step to it, and to MARCH 26, 1851 a certain extent would detach them from Rome. They found, therefore, that the history of the case was this, that the moderate party in the Church was always asking for diocesan bishops, that the extreme party always supported the system of vicars-apostolic, and that the Government sided with the moderate party. It was his (Mr. Gladstone's opinion that the course Ministers were taking, so far from stopping the course of affairs, was calculated to do the very reverse—that it was throwing them back, acd a move in the direction of penal laws. It was both a persecution and a nul lity. If they wished to exercise a beneficial influence on the Roman Catholics they must reverse their policy. They must deal with them kindly. They had feelings and affec tions they could turn to account, for they were distinguished by their attachment to their country, and their attachment to the Crown.—(llear, hear.) If they drove them back on the Pope, what could they expect but alienated feelings,and the difficulties on the other side of the Channel would be proportionately increased. In that country their difficulties had already commenced. When the colleges were opened last year, they had a party in the Catholic Church in favour of the colleges, and there was a division in that Church on the question. But there was no division now.—(Hear, bear, and cheers.) The question with them now was, should they go backwards or forwards?—(Hear, hear.) He con tended that there had been no temporal interference by the Pope in the late appointments, except such as were incidental to the office of bishop. Wonld they, then, go backwards, or forwards, in religious liberty? Did they think so ill of their own religion as to fear the breath of free com petition ?—(Hear, hear.) It was useless to urge that the present measure was but a trifling retrogression. Of course it was but a trifling retrogression ; but all retrogressions were so at first. But what security had they that other and more formidable measures were not in the back ground-- (Loud cries of " Hear, hear") —and that during the next half century the question of religious liberty would not again act upon Parliament, and be made the means of unseating Ministers ?—( Hear, hear.) Do not tell him that the cha racter of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was a security. He once thought it was—(Hear, hear) —but if they prophe sied that the Noble Lord would not prohibit the action of synods, he feared they woul Ibe in error. If in 1845 any one had told him that in the month of March, 1851, the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill to prohibit ecclesias tical titles on the part of Roman Catholic bishops, he (Mr. Gladstone) would not have believed it. He never heard a more impresssive passage than one which was delivered by the Noble Lord in his speech upon the second reading of the Bill for enlarging the endowment of the college of Nlaynooth, when the Noble Lord referred to some lines of Virgil— " Scilicet et tempus veniet, cum finibus illis Agricola, incurvo terrain molitus aratro, Exesa inveniet scabrit rubigine pile ; Aut gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit inanes, Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris." The Noble Lord said, that upon the sceneswhere battles had been fought the hand of nature effaced the ruin which the hand of man had wrought; and the cultivator of the soil in aftertimes found the rusted arms, and looked upon them with joy as the memorials of forgotten strife, and as enhanc ing the blessings of his peaceful occupation ; but he added, in reference to the powerful opposition to that measure, that it seemed that our strifes upon the question of religious free dom never were at an end, and our arms never were to rust. —(Hear, hear.) Would any man who heard the Noble Lord deliver those impressive sentences have believed, not only that strife in regard to the great question of religious liberty was to be revived—revived, it was to be feared, with a great deal of acerbity—in this year 1851—(Hear, hear)—but that he himself was to be a main agent in the revival—(Hear, hear) - that his was to be the head which was to wear the helmet, and his the hand which was to grasp the spear ? ( Hear, hear.) The principle of religious freedom—its adapta tion to their modern state and to their ancient institutions, was not adopted rashly. Were they going to spend the latter part of the century in undoing that which they had already done? It must be recollected that Europe, and the civilized world, looked to England at the present moment. They knew that nothing was so distasteful to England as obsolete theories, and that when she made a step forward, she kept it—that she was not a republic to-day, and a mo narchy to-morrow. If the people of England, then, at tempted to turn back the principle of civil and religious liberty it would recoil upon themselves.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had appealed to those on his (Mr. Glad stone's) side of the House in the names of Hampden and of Pym ; but he confessed he would rather have heard those names appealed to on any other subject—(Hear, hear) — because if there was one blot on their scutcheons, it was the odious intolerance which they practised against the Catholics. (Hear, hear.) He would rather prefer appealing to those great men who were mentioned by Hallam, to whom they owed the safety of this great monarchy, and whose disposi tion was to avert the severity of the laws and to attach to them their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Alluding to the party with which he was connected the Right Hon. Gentleman said, there was no great band of union which bound them together ; but that they felt they should, one day, have the forceof public opinion.—(Cheers and laughter.) He entreated the House to consider well the conclusion to which they were about to come on this important question, and trusted that their votes would be given in accordance with the sacred principles of justice, and that while they were sustained by a sense of justice, they would resolve to follow wherever it might lead. The Right Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud cheering, which continued for several minutes. Mr. DISRAELI-Sir, I think I gave testimony last night, by voting against the adjournment of the debate, that I did not wish to intrude on the House in this debate. I hope, however, that as few of those with whom I usually act have addressed the House on this subject, trusting perhaps to my I feeble expression of their views-that I may have the oppor tunity of expressing with extreme brevity our views of the general question which has been mooted, and particularly of the measure offered to our consideration. Sir, we have been informed by a Minister of the Crown that an aggression has been committed against the supremacy of the Sovereign and the honour of the nation. By the same means that this in formation was conveyed to us, we were informed that the aggression was committed by a prince of no great power. Fellowing up that intimation, the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield has talked of that power as a poor feeble priest ; and more than one Hon. Gentleman has taken several op portunities of reminding us that the present possessor of the Papal see was surrounded by French bayonets-a fact which has been reiter ,ted as a reason for our countenancing the aggression which the Government has confessed has taken place. Now, Sir, I would remind the House that more than three centuries ago the Pope was not only supported-if I may use the expression-by French bayonets, but that Rome was taken and sacked by a french prince, and that the Pope of those days suffered indignities greater than Pius IX. has ever been subjected to. Yet, since that period, the greatest achievements of the Papal see have occurred ' • and since that period, and notwithstanding the strong will of Henry VIII. and the pure spirit of Edward VI., the Protestant Establish ment in England was subverted ; and it is only because the at' empt of Phillip and Mary was not successful that I am not at this moment perhaps addressing a Popish Speaker and a Popish Parliament.-(Hear.) Now, Sir, whatever may be our opinions of this aggression, it is not true-it is not wise to despise the foe who committed it.- (Hear, hear.) 1 deny, Sir, that this prince is a prince of no great power. I say he is a prince of very great power-if not of the greatest. I will not dwell on those millions of his sub jects of whose existence we have been so often reminded by speakers on both sides, but I will remind the House that, in dependent of that circumstance the Pope has at his com mand, between the regular and secular clergy, an army of 1,000,000 of priests, governed by thousands of bishops and atelbishops, and that he was the general and lieutenant general of this great host.-(Hear.) And is this, Sir, the power that we are told is to be treated in the same way as we treat the Wesleyan Conference.-(Cheers.) Is this a power to be associated with the last invention of Scotch Dissenters ?-(Hear, hear.) When I listened, Sir, to the ingenious reasonings with which this fallacy was supported, and to the fallacious analogies of the Right lion. Gentle man, I fora moment supposed they were only a display of dialectics to adorn the debate.-(Hear, hear.) But when I remember the high position of those who have indulged in them, I could not help suspecting that there was a concealed object, and that their comparisons were more pregnant with meaning than they seemed to be.- (Hear.) And, indeed, Sir, it has scarcely been concealed by the Right Hon. Gen tleman who has just sat down, for he says, " If you apply this doctrine to the Queen's supremacy, and to those adhering to the Roman Catholic communion, on what plea can you refuse to apply it to Wesleyans, or to Scotch Dis senters?" But, Sir, the converse of the proposition is equally true, and if that interpretation of religious liberty supported 1.;) , the Right Honourable Gentleman and the Honourable and Learned Member for Plymouth is to be ac cepted and applied to the Church of Rome, on what plea can you refuse to apply the same principle of religious liberty not only to the Church of Rome, but to the Church of England ?- (Cheers.) On what ground can you vindi cate a restriction of the principle which you support, so far as the Church of England is concerned? Is she not to have the command of her internal discipline and internal arrange ments? Why is she not to have a synod of action?- (Cheers.) Why is the Church of England alone to acknow ledge the supremacy of the Queen?-(Hear,' hear.) Why, Sir, we see the trouble involved in the principle assumed.- (Hear. hear.) The only inference you can draw from the new philosophy of the Right Honourable Gentleman and his friends is, that they are opposed to the alliance between Chwch and State.-(Loud cheers.) I believe the House of Commons are not yet prepared to support that prin ciple. -(Renewed cheers.) Sir, I cannot deal with this ag gression of the Pope on the abstract principles which have been introduced into the discussion. I must look to the cir cumstances which surround us. On one side it is acknow ledged that there has been a great revival of Romanism in Europe. No one denies that. But, on the other hand, it is said that there has been a great revival of Protestantism in England. What will be the issue of the struggle which the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon seemed to think inevitable in Europe, I will not take upon me to say. The circumstances are so complicated and the catastrophe so awful, that we shrink from attempting to form an opinion of so terrible a contin gency. What may be the issue in our own country is unfor tunately a subject on which every man is much more quali fied to form a judgment. I confess the possible result is one which makes me shudder, and I think Government would only be doing its duty, if a contest between Romanism and Protestantism was inevitable in this country, if it proposed measures and advised a line of conduct to prevent such mischiefs and to counteract such evils.-(Hear.) I come now to inquire whether the measure proposed is adequate for such an end, and whether, if the circumstances detailed be authentic, it is calculated to prevent the mischief contemplated. I re member I ventured, on the introduct ion of them measi f ire i t h o e say that it was not equal to the p.roe Noble Lord-that it asserted no principlesandvine dicated no right. After the lap se of some few hours w bad another version of the measure by the chief law important character. of the Crown, which g ave it a more character. The Attorney-General informed us that the measure would not only deal with titles illegitimately assumed, but with bequests and endowments to p ersons assuming these titles; and he reminded ns, in a tone of self-complacency , that synodical ,action would be dealt What, then, was the Act? The whole p ro j ects of with.t the Attorney-General was - suddenly withdrawn, and we were told that we were only to discuss a Bill containing one c l aus e, and when the Secretary of State made this ann ouncement on the part of Ministers, he scarcely con cealed their opinion that it would be inoperative in Ire land and might be evaded in England; but that it wa s necessary to pass it as a demonstratiln and as a protest. (Hear, hear.) I ask, Sir, what could be a better vin dication of the course proposed by Lord Stanley than this proceeding of the Ministry? - (Hear, hear.) If the best course was to protest in the face of Europe, would not a resolution of the two Houses have been of more avail, not only for that purpose, but also to sustain the spirit of England, than the project of a law, which in the course of six weeks has undergone countless transformations, and which has been announced by its projectors as ineffective, and the effect of which is even, perhaps', more than doubtful? I want to place before the House the reasons for my disap proval of the measure. My first objection is, that by im plication it confesses that the conduct of Cardinal Wiseman, of which you complain, was not illegal. It must have been , eitlAer one or the other. If it were legal, it was - hot 'an offence-if it were illegal, why then did you not deal with it by the law ? 13ut he wee told that the law wile obsolete. The circumstances, Sir; in the present case were fresh and fligrant. The law which could have dealt with it was not obsolete, but ancient.—(Hear, hear.) And it is treason against the liberties of England to contend that all ancient laws are obsolete, because our liberties depended upon such. —(Hear, hear and cheers.) The second reason for my objection to this Bill is, that it attempts to legislate upon phrases and not facts. It attempts to legislate upon tithes. Now this is clear, that if you press the law, no person who could be subjected to it will ever place himself in a position as an offender under it. Yet he will not the less use the titles and those incidents which are conse quent upon his office. The whole thing is founded on a fallacy. If you choose to legislate on titles, you should not legislate against the assumption of titl es b y t h e bi s h o p s o f th Roman Catholic Church, but against those titles of honour and dignity which have been conferred upon them by her Majesty's kinisters.—(Cheers.) What a mockery it is when the Ministers are caressing and lauding these bishops, to be proposing penal statutes, because those bishops: are treated with respect and honour by one class of her Majesty's subjects.—(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Bar one t t h e Secretary for the Home Department had told them that these bishops were so addressed by the Government on the ground of social courtesy. Nothing was more inane than to legis. late against those titles assumed by the Roman Catholic bishops, and not against those titles of honour conferred on them by the Government.—(Cheers.) I repeat that the Bill asserted no principle. That cannot be questioned. It would be assuredly a principle if it laid this down, that no person should accept place or dignity, employment or office, civil or ecclesiastical, from any foreign prince, except with the consent of her Majesty. That might be a national enactment and have taken the form of a statesman like precaution, instead of the present measure which had only the appearance of a spiteful act of the Government of this country against Popery. It may be said that the con sent of the Crown would be equivalent to a veto. That I deny. I will not now stop to argue upon the propriety or otherwise of the veto; but I deny that such a measure as I suggested would amount to a veto. The Roman Catholic bishop, as a matter of course, receives his appointment upon doing that which every gentleman elected in the constitu tional way to represent a constituency in this house is bound to do— namely, to take the oaths that are proposed to him upon his appointment to such an office. I feel the utter impossibility at this hour of the night to enter fully into this,discussion. 1 feel also that I have great difficulties to contend against in attempting to criticise the measure before us. The relations that subsist between me and the Noble Lord are not those which-are faronrable' to a candid criticism.— (Hear.) If the Noble Lord were my Noble Friend—(Loud cheers)—if there subsisted between us relations of friendship —even of affection—(Cheers and laugh ter)—l would availmyself of the proud privilege of such mu tual sensibility, and rest assured I would take care:neither to spare his policy or his feelings.— (Renewed laughter.) And this reminds me that while attempting to prove that this mea sure is inefficient, although I shall vote for the second reading of it upon the same grounds as were stated by my lion and L earned Friend near me (Sir F. Tbesiger), though not in any way pledging myself ultimately to support the Bill— though I think it will be evaded in England and inoperative in Ireland—yet that it had been supported and opposed by authorities of the greatest importance and commented upon in language of a most varied character. I heard it stated by one party that this Bill would be opposed because it was a reversial of our policy. Sir, I have heard these phrases before.—(Cheers.) I remember, about two years ago, making a very moderate proposition to mitigate the burden of taxation upon a suffering class of her Majesty's subjects, and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) then my opponent, as he is now the opponent of the Government, did oppose the proposition, because be said it was the reversal of our policy.—(Hear, hear.) But on that occasion the pretext appeared to be so monstrous that it was not swallowed by the Right Hon, Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford ( M r . Gladstone). But on the present occasion," the reversal of our policy" is likely to bear some serious consequences. These consequences, we are told by the Right Hon. the Member for Ripon, are to be inevitable and immediate if this Bill passes into a law—namely, a civil war in Ireland. Now I heard that announcement with some misapprehension, but with more surprise.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gen tleman reminded us of the state of Ireland in 1829, and he said that we escaped civil war then by yielding to ber de mands, but you will sot escape it even if you persist in this measure. He made an analogy between the state of Ireland in 1829 and 1851, and according to him that analogy was complete. I ask him now whether that analogy was just, and whether it was complete and proved? If so, what, then, is the result of all those great measures we have parsed for the amelioration of Ireland during the last twenty years?.. (Hear, hear.) If the state of Ireland be in the same posi tion now as it was in 1829. What, I say, was the use of giving complete political equality to the Roman Catholics in Ireland; of reconstructing the Church Establishment there; of abolishing tithes, and of establishing the great system of national education founded by Lord Stanley?—(Hear, hear.) What, I say then, was the use of granting them municipal reform, by which the corporation was opened to all creeds, and upon the lowest franchise, not withstanding the opposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself ? (Cheers.) What was the use of the new colleges— of giving to the Roman Catholics a university munificently endowed? What was the use of your doing for Ireland that which you had not done for England, namely, of having revised and increased the franchise in Ireland; if it be true that Ireland in 1851 is in the same state it was in 1829, namely, on the verge of rebellion ?—(Cheers.) Sir, I have too much faith not only in the loyalty, but the common sense of the Irish people, to believe that this is the case.—(Hear.) If that were true which had fallen from the lips of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, why, I ask, are those the lips through which such an intimation is circulated?— (Cheers.) I make these observations because the Right Hou. Gentleman is no inconsiderable person. He is one of " the foremost men of all this world," and according to the not very delicate intimation of his friends, he is even likely soon to occupy a still more responsible situation than he at pr rsent fills.— (Hear, hear.) He wears the white robe, and stands in the forum a candidate for the consulate.— (Cheers.) It will be well for the people to pause over the observations he has made, for they have been both strange and singular in the course of this session. —(Hear, hear.) I proposed one day a revision of the taxation in respect to the suffeiing farmer, and the Right Hon. Baronet threatens me wick a mutiny in the army.—(Cheers.) Some elections took place not exactly favourable to the views he enunci ated, and he threatens us with Parliamentary reform.— (Laughter.) A measure is brought forward to resist what is styled a foreign aggression, hostile to the honour of the na tion and the supremacy of the Sovereign, and he says that there will be a rebellion in Ireland. —(Renewed laughter.) Now, I hear in the course of eight weeks three remarkable assertions, which are well worthy the consideratien of those who are uncertain in mind and are likely to alarm those who ~re peaceably disposed. Let us consider, then, whether the Right Hon. Gentleman is likely to become the pilot that will weather the storm. There was one great measure brought forward for Ireland in the course of the last twenty years, which was not successful, and that was the only one that was proposed by the Minister which did not succeed. Itwas one that would ;have despoiled the Protestant Establishment of part of its revenues in order to partially endow the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. That measure was brought forward by the Noble Lord, but it was defeated by the oppo sition of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. This shows how little acquainted, after all, we are with all that takes place about us, and how difficult it is for us to form an accurate conception of contemporary events, even of those in which we ourselves have mingled, when it is reserved for this debate for the House of Commons and the country to be informed what the motives were which induced the Right Hon. Gentleman to take the course which he then pursued, It appeared that the opposition given to the appropriation clause upon his part was solely influenced by an abstract ob jection to endowments.—(Hear ' hear.) I wuader if that was the motive which animated Lord Stanley, who was then the companion of the Right Hon. Baronet, for they both stood together on their chivalry. But it is certain that neither this House nor the country was in the secret, or did really believe that the opposition of the Right Hon. Baronet to the appropriation clause was founded upon an abstract objection to endowments. If I had heard it from any other person I should imagine this objection to come from a titular arch bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, from the cardinal, or the general of the Jesuit:. Was it for this that the Cabinet of Lord Grey was subverted? Was it for this that the Right llcnourable Gentleman had enlisted himself under that Con servative banner which he has so faithfully served? — (Ironical cheers.) Sir, I Con% believe there is the slightest chance or fear of civil war in Ireland. I agree with the Right Honourable Member for the Uni versity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) that the principle of civil liberty is too deeply impressed on the minds of the people of this age that they could be stimulated to the commission of any such unhappy outrages. It is utterly impossible that Ireland could be governed on the principles of the Protee taut ascendancy; but equally certain is it that no Govern ment can exist that is not faithfully devoted to the Protes tant Constitution of this country.— (Great cheering.) In its maintenance are involved greater interests than the fate of a Government—namely, the fate of the crown and the destiny of the empire; and, trust me, not the least important interest involved in it is that of the civil and religious liberties of the Roman Catholics themselves.—(Cheers.) _ . - - Sir G. GREY said it was impossible not to be struck with the fact, that amongst the most able of the opponents to this Bill—men of great talent, ingenuity, and sophistry—in pointing out objections to the course the Government were pursuing, and in detailing their difficulties and embarrass ments, there was a remarkable absence of any one fixed or definite principle upon which their objections to the Go meat measure rested. It was asserted by the Roman Catholic Members of that House, for whom he entertained the most sincere respect, that the Bill embodied the principle of persecution, and was opposed to religious freedom. He challenged any one to adduce the proofs in support of such an assertion. He ag ree d with the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) in the pri nc i p l e which he had laid down as the only one that should guide us in dealing with it—namely, that it should be framed upon the ground of imperial policy. So far as the spiritual pro gress of the Roman Catholic faith and spiritual means w ere concerned,.we should be departing from the principles which guided as if we in any degree fettered by law the progress of t h a t religion ; and he admitted that his ttoman Catholic friends would have a clear right to complain, if we violated th ose principles of equality and freedom, or di d net a ll ow our fellow-subjects the same extent of freedom which we claimeed for ourselves. On this subject he could only say he did not regret the act of the effect of invoking the strong p e, because it had the attachment of the people of this country to the Protestant Church, and of drawing together in one bond of union the members of the different Protestant communions, not for the purpose of forcing on the Legislature any undue restrictions, but for the purpose of repelling what they considered to be an aggres sion upon their rights and liberties. He deeply regretted that anything of a polemica l c h a racter should enter into these debates. Ther e were t w o points to be here considered. The fi rs t was , w hether there had been such an aggression on the sovereignty of the Queen and the in dependence of the nation, as called upon Parliament to inter fere, and next whether if this be answered in the affirma tive, this was a measure which Parliament, under the cir cumstances, ought to adopt? The Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Plymouth in his very able speech bad defended the act of the Pope, as based on the principle of religious free dbm ; and had denied that it was opposed to the law of na tions. He had said it was only in that manner that the or ganisation which the Roman Catholics had a right to use, could be carried out ; and the conclusion to which the lion. and Learned Gentleman had come to was, that. Parliament had nothing to do with that attempt. The lion. Gentleman who had followed him in the debate, however, had enter tained a stronger sense of the aggression, and his quarrel with the Government was, that it proposed to do too little, and not too much in the matter. Another Honourable Member bad considered that some legislation was necessary, but that it ought not to be directed against the subjects of her Ma jesty, but against the Pope himself. Now he (Sir George Grey) could not see how legislation could take place in re spect of that question, without affecting the subjects of her Majesty. The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had said that the act of the. Pope was defensible, and had asked how the civil or political state of this country was affected by it? And he had gone en even to claim credit for the l'ort f or Appointing bizboo itutifsd i