The Sun. — London, England, 1851-03-21 00:00:00

!t. of the intended measure, a no t by hi s cele gernbere nd.; and. :duced to lover in P o ntiff:, r contra he H° l3. was Pe r. taken "I ?.stauts 04' the y nor e suPP rt ‘ D reins 0 ' eluded in louss , to !, a bresc' THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 21, 1851. by their mandate from the Flaminian- gate, no one was to be allowed to challenge their authority?—(Hear, hear.) Tho Proteitaut Members of that House had not sworn yel to obey that man ate, although Hon. Gentlemen opposite had done so.—(Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh.") The people were at present willing to ab:de by the decision of th leaders of the parties to which they looked up, and to abide by the decision of that House. But it those leaders were to throw them over, if the House were to refuse to give them sufficient protection, they woul i take the law into their own hands ; and the only way to preserve the public peace would be to give them a Bill with adequate powers for ensuring the objects they had in view. Of course when the nation was excitet —(Laughter, and cries of `• Hear," in a very loud and jeering tone from a few of the Roman Catholic Members)—when the people were excited, men were influenced by various motives ; but if there was any one feeling in which the peoplee were more unanimous than in any other, it was in an honest John Bull hatred of imposture—(Hear, hear)—and of impostures and in pity (or their dupes.—(Derisive cheers from the Roman Cotholic Members.) Were they going to have in this coun try cargoes of blinking statues, of bleeding pictures of liqui fying blood, of Virgin Mary's milk?-Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the same Members.) Mr. OTLAIIERTY rose to order. He was not a very ex perienced Member of that House ; but he respectfully ap pealed to the English House of Commons—to a body which he had always understood to be composed of men of gentle manly feeling —of men who would not permit any portion of the Members of that House (Loud cries of " Hear, hear") — or any portion of her Majesty's subjects, professing no matter what creed they might conscientiously believe to be right— who would not permit them to be wantonly insulted ; and he did hope that even at that moment there would be some ex pres ion of feeling with reap .ct to the language which had been held by the Hon. Gentleman whom he called to order. —( Hear.) He believed that Gentleman's language was worthy of his tastes as well as his judgment. Sir G. GREY here rose, but immediately gave way to other Members who seemed eager to address the House. Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved the adjournment of the House. Mr. P. HOWARD seconded the motion.—(Cries of " Chair" and " Order.") The S 'EAKER said Let me intreat of Hon. Members not to interrupt the regular course of the debate. But at the same time I do hope, that on a qttestion of so much delicacy as this, upon a matter which relates to the religion of a por tion of her Majesty's subjects, Hon. Members will abstain from all exnressions of an offensive character.— (Cheers.) Mr. DRUMMOND again rose, but was for a moment in terrupted by An Hoc. MEatneu on the benches occupied by the Ro man Catholic party, who exclaimed—" We are not here to be insulted. " Mr. DRUMMOND then proceeded to say, that an Hon. Member had last night pointed out to them the fact that Car dinal Wiseman had specially selected—The Hon. Gentleman bad not concluded the sentence, when Mr. .1 O'CONNELL said that the Mon. Member for Sur rey, having been reprimanded, ought in common decency to apologise. (Oh, oh ) The r;PEAKER said—The Honourable Gentleman is him self g.iilty of a breach of order. I did not call the Honour able Member for Surrey to order, nor did I venture to repri mand him. I only took the liberly of expressing a hope that the Honourable Member, in the course of a debate so delicate, and so exciting as the present, would abstain from using expressions likely to cause irritation.—(Hear.) Mr. MOORE rose to order—(Cries of "Order" and "Chair.")—The expressions used by the Hon. Member for Surrey were not merely disrespectful to the religious feelings of some Members of that House, but would be out of order in any Christian assembly.—(Great confusion,) The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman is clearly out of order. _ _ 4 * (l ° l was the law as laid down in their authorities. He eit u d le d then briefly call their attention to the oath taken by ow I nels. It wa- , to the following effect : - " I promise and L e P . ' from this time forward and as long as I shall live to ri.ipthfal and obedient to the bishopric of St. Peter, to his is s i ,!ega the Pope, the Head of the Catholic Church, and ",7. 11 will fight for (the word used was propugnor), endea -7t and stand forth for him, against all others, with all my Zgth and power." Could a man after taking that oath 1 ,2 Ile oath of allegiance to the Queen?-(Hear.) What orliitah.rtduien rule in making a cardinal. "That man or boy (for I sometime too, made boys cardinals) having been made al, fror ' n ' that moment ceased to be under the control ,„ Is father." Now it was not enough for the Pope to have Zselted our constitution by sending that cardinal, who was gt o ll to fight fur him against all others, and eight other 41 . 4 bona to this country, but he should presume also to set ki t all the bishoprics in England. The Hon. Member here k gr t lX,l to and read a couple of . extracts from the Papal re , kni e s t in reference to the old existing arrangements and cus hi of this country, which the new bishops were to assist toodelling anew. Indeed he (Mr. Drummond) had "io:er seen one of those pastoral letters which did nut a it t l ll a falsehood in itself.-(Laughter.) It was as -1110 in a pastoral letter in Ireland the other day 4,,, "le see of Canterbury had been established by Pope It e i l ltetY. Now, any one who took the trouble to read the a ctable Bede, might find that it was the King who had 1 1, 411 shed th a t see; and, indeed, there was no evidence of s ss ePe having attempted to do anything of himself in this : t ry without the sanction and interference of the civil r i , e r. But they bad been told by the Papal organ (the tcuiet newspaper, we believe), that all their legislation upon t% suhject would be null and void, because it was op ed to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. (The th l \* ?limber here read an extract from the journal in qur s hut). That was the arrogant tone assumed by their oppo el„,„t He would, however, next pass to another class, the their el utilitarians, who asked bow the matter would to uch a it Pockets. These gentlemen said they wished to know t t ther an y persons , or any class, were demanding their e etioa. But did the negro slave ask for protection? 1 / 14 the frimdless child ask for protection ? Did the poor a th W ho was locked up in a convent, where she might be of her starved or flogged into acquiescence with the vie ws I l'aZ superiors, ask for protection ? - (Cries of " Oh, oh.") k? might cry " Oh, oh," but he would tell t h e m that e nunneries were either prisons or brothels, they might " their ch • Th nice. ted e ge Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he rose to 14 f,' - '(" Hear, hear," from the Roman Catholic Members.) ,11" 4 ",,ad but that moment entered the House, and he had lit, " the Hon. Member for Surrey-unless he had mistaken ' Cords - he had heard him say that a nunnery was either ir, B A oll or a brothel. He asked the Speaker whether it was 4 ; 4 ,er for any Hon. Member to state that those nunneries ah r "ich re s id e d l a di e s - (Hear, hear) - who devoted them . th" to the service of God, who endeavoured to attain to Geerfection of all evangelical precepts-whether it was in ' O 2 for an y Member of that House to refer to them in terms ill:graceful ?- (Hear, hear.) lislo a SPEAKER said that in answer to the question of the lt o ,e Earl he should say that nothing had fallen from the h v Z Member for Surrey which was inconsistent with the irl" of debate allowed to Members of that House. r . GRATTAN rose and hastily uttered a few words 'quai l did not reach us. 14 4 1 1, 11 00 RE said he would suggest to the Hon. Member t,,. _the observations in which he was indulging were calcu it he t " lead to retor: and retaliation, and that it would not, 1t t h e be consistent with the dignity of the House 14" e Hon. Member should indulge in such language. !ht. / ' DRUMMOND said he was obliged to any Hon. Mem. 44 i r t ?"l whom he received any merited correction. But he Ni l unselt been interrupted in his argument by the excla kens of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would, however, eed, and then they would see what was that evangelical e ction to which the Roman Catholic Church was advanc-' tip,e Noble Earl (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) had r ens on a former occasion that he had presented a peti int: the Papal See for the very thing that had lately been kig t 8 q that the Pope 'in sending over Cardinal Wiseman k iti : ll establishing a Roman Catholic hierarchy, had done Iltsy ns el Y what the Romal Catholics in this country had so k '' , him to do. Now he (Mr. Drummond) bad never lied that petition, but as the Noble Earl had said that it st ti.heen presented he could have no doubt of the truth 111 1 ,..." statement. Bat he said that that was directly in Pig teeth of another petition which had been presented t o ti 'Pal Court by other Roman Catholics. He held in na ndl' a petition, signed by Lord Petre and a number of ru s t respectable Roman Catholic gentlemen, in which elOeprecated the adoption of any scheme which would tti e l i .e missionaries of the religious orders of the oat t Zge of voting at the election of vicars apostolic. ede a rtt was the very result which would follow from the Lk"' l c% of the scheme which had just been introduced into l lOte e°ll rlttY. Under that scheme the great mass of the tha t a n Catholic clergy would be in a worse position than ~ltsebioh they had previously occupied, and would be tat o 3 ' without redress against the oppression of their t 1 ° ° ,P°; for they might at any moment be dismissed from a ti i,lving s by these bishops without any reason being as )1117, for their dismissal. They were, however, generally tern t ri q ,, 3 Who had no other means of gaining a livelihood, so theY would be dependent on the will of their bishops by 4 l e t ir daily bread. He held in his hand a letter written kir ° man Catholic priest, a friend of his, and published ea Years a go , in which that reverend gentleman depre ttttott4oY attempt to increase the powers of the vicars akt i .,, c by converting them into bishops in the manner that ket e c te ntlY been adopted. That showed that that was not i lite ezi l a question of title, and that it was not true that the ?tle of did not trench on the rights of the great ltat' is of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity. He held in dat„7and a letter from a Roman Catholic in Rome, and V is this very year, in which the writer stated that a brief kietn i ng prepared to force on the Roman Catholics of lts's`lici the canon law of Rome, which was very different NI le N the canon law of this country, inasmuch as it m ade lops absolute masters of all Church temporalities, such ob, s _ quests and benefices. The writer added that the great ttlf.,r of thee reation of the new mock hierarchy was the in hti Ll ction of that canon law, which would by that means sss'e t ablished for the first time in this country. He had tic: letters from Roman Catholic clergymen denouncing '4', 4 , empt to render them wholly dependent on the will tteir bishops. (The Hon. Member here read some ex bh:',3 from those letters.) Now he would say that if no tr i. else would stand up for those poor men, he had a 14et to do so.-(Laughter from the Roman Catholic Mem tilte) Dr. Ullathorne had asked whether information of el"; description was communicated by Roman Catholic ltaPneni n full communion with the Church ; but he knew a; that if they made themselves known they would at once et t 4ePrieed of their livings. Dr. Wiseman had treated the Ve th Ce,,as one which would not affect the position of Roman kik i :?uos in this country. But ha (Mr. Drummond) would the In f man Catholic could be intended more dicectly to dece ive % I? Catholic laity than the pamphlet of Dr. Wise- Why,,_ Dr. Wiseman knew that it was directly calcu li teo mislead the Roman Catholic laity. Let them look 1 144 Pamphlet of Lord Shrewsbury, which had " let Y tt t out of the bag." Dr. O'Finnan had been dismissed a e • 011 order from Rome from the bishopric of Killala, f r t hat t s h . e r reason than that he had appealed to British law- in "e had appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench t e "e • in his Greet; Year 1937 ; and Lord Shrewsbury, letter 1 • APHale, said :-" Dr. O'Finnan, one of your sill it i: suffragans, was dispossessed of the diocese of tru e o ,f and another thurst into his place, as the successful I l e i tis, `an intrigue in Rome." The pretens ions and the t eat k if the Papal See had remained at all times ut.i tillsor' lie had at that moment extracts from the writ te s ne less th a n 21 Popes-(A laugh)-he did not m ea n delta' them to the House-extending from the year 731 I re!" t o a very recent period, all asserting that the Popes I tirit t aa paramount in things temporal as well as in things t , s 1t 0 441.- -( Hear, hear.) There was not a doctrine of tea s il lan Catholic Church for which he could find 'saver or more unbroken testimony. One Pope said that te ta e l t ,b o denied that he was lord over temporal matters ta r 4 ' as over spiritual, were " wild beasts"-(Hear , e at end laughter)-were " asini" -were the body b tg rist,r -- were " members of the devil and of Anti- Il i n e , -- (Renewed cries of "Hear, hear," and laughter ) It . ti ti ell known, however, that Popes had deposed Sovereign I ti 4 . n e t e es . ) and . had absolved their subjects from their alle kat• oeven councils had given decisions in favour of the N i le! the Popes to supreme temporal power. But he wd i °I! told that the claim had been disputed. Yes; but st c ito r i t been disputed? They had heard of the index expur- Zgep 4B . Which contained a list of all beoks condemned by Pee Pal .See. The writings of none of these Popes had Nap il l t l .tlt into the index expurgatorius, whils all the writings l i llalt It ig their claim to temporal power, which were prin. s L Y the roductions of Frenchmen, had been put into it. t '''' , e l p o e s t it wonld be idle to deny that the Popes claimed a tid s it' superiority over Christendom just as much as they 0 3 , 1 1'ver what was called St. Peter's patrimony. Dr. teltt li s ' in his letter to Lord Liverpool, made use of the fol.. es i S language :-" It is quite obvious that these claims lite of their origin in the Gospel, or in the doctrines of \i"'",,_lnan Catholic Church, but in the state of society ) t 141 e zeal and the mistaken . ambition of Popes, directed t e e ltle ,aCiable avarice, pride, and thirst for power." But telissi ti alln bad, nevertheless, been put forward and ea i.rei'"t Pope Boniface, writing to Philip le Bel of Ore. i after sending him many g reetin g s, said `e t wish you to know that you are subordinate to us, both tt t, l n i ,Poral and spiritual concernsand Philip wrote back K:1 °1 " : " Philip, by the grace of God, to Boniface, ,N-1,7 as. Pope, little or no greeting-(A laugh)-you are as s y informed that in temporal concerns we are not sub -I,,,l'eate to you " Inesents. N What were the means by which the had carried out their doctrines upon that subject? 4 '4' hY excommunication and by a denial of the n ista Now the sacraments had been given as instru -1%47 of grace to the laity, but priests had tnken them as ed s amours of ersecntion and villany. One of the things ru n t that Bill 13 si a to be most regretted was, that it had prevented -11 1 °I nall Catholic laity from rebelling against the Synod h t . kir „les. , 114 ) . 4 .,OWER -No such thing. elst l ',l- 11 1UMMOND-Why, the Hon. and Learned Gentle ell,. ''"e Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) had told them Riqi T he Roman st Catholic divines taught that all who Llitaii t ( ! for their own spiritual advancement should yield an elgi it i t obedience to their spiritual superiors wherever they "ke be. In 11 known work they were required to tile a a we - ,Ilti i t as a stick in the hands of a man who walked ii:l'he t : and as dead bodies, perfectly passionless." In an- Ifni Plssage it was stated that nothing could involve an °b et, Ur Lord sin unless a superior . commanded it in the name 1./4 41 , Jesus Christ, or in virtue of' holy obedience.- Los ,i hear.) Dr. Wiseman bad lately published an edi- Zilie -t 2 l e "Exercises" of Loyola. In the preface to that cer %ti tle said, "In the Roman Catholic Church ne one is „etei,, owed to trust himself in spiritual matters ; the So 'elle Pontiff 'liras -if is obliged to trust to others in what the. : Il e his own soul." Now number 13 of those exercises Nat,', 3 fellows :-" That we may in all things attain truth, ka.ed t ! ll ay not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it as a, ln"„ k nlinciple that what we see white we must believe to t gllkt ~."' if the Church so commands it."-(Hear, hear.) ~,.lgtia s the evangelical holiness which Cardinal Wiseman F, "itai„_ Why those men appeared like Thugs. The Thugs ,;te anted murder as an act of worship ; and those men told i' s etlef, t , ll act of worship. There were plenty of liars in the i. uip i , out in that case they had men pretending to be wor- Zhlte er ss B ' .l God ready for the sake of that worship to say that t las tit ; `l black.-(Hear ) Talk of degradation ! Where , 4 „lits r e any negro slave in such a state of degradation as ~.'"e4tllidst all the horrors of the slave trade the negro was • o llts,i i to express truly his opinion of the sugar which he if t ..qoa t s l-)° Pe said that an " honest man was the noblest work Ifia esin and men of every sect ought to disdain to tell a lie. e N.ld lltr Y was indignant upon that subject. But some "M s l e l/ 1 1)m had stated most unwisely-and no one more %e lit e 3' than the Hon. Member for Ayrshire-that the k i , l :Ydid not care about the matter. t), l itr. b B ,,,WALD-I beg pardon, I never said so.- (Hear.) ,qat 4 "UMMO \ID continued-Why it had been said in sit ° use over and over again that the people had been l lot e d to e , the agitation of that question, and that they did th ri about• .r,' %eaen-etlvrad i i n t. (do, He was eorry they had been exc red in ll eit ,,Y ,l t i t e ley had been. --(Laughter, and derisive cries of w as i i. . hear," from the Roman Catholic Members.) He nciliation Hall nor in monster meetine. t tia, ioi _ ed laughter from the same Members.) Both in tleir if s ' s .and in practice he hated their Whig doctrines and kite ki . ‘_ , lcal performances.- (Continued laugher.) Whe -40 ihrf . • Members willed it or not, he would state the truth, —1 thiak tUit if they Aflealpted t 9 11119 thia coluitry Mr. GRATTAN-1 am an old Member of the House, and I call the Hon. Member for Surrey to order in consequence of the improper expressions he has used. I have a right— and I know ,it has been done—to move that his words be taken down. I ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Go vernment, and the older Members of the House, if I am not in order, and if your predecessors, Sir, have not taken that course? Mr. DRUMMOND rose to speak, but the uproar was so great that he resumed his seat. Mr. GRATTAN again insisted that he had a right to have the words taken down. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman is clearly mistaken in his view of, the rule. The Hon. Member for Surrey is entitled by 'the rules of debate to use any expressions he pleases, prov.ded he uses none personally offensive to any n Member or one disrespectful to the House. All that I said was by way of caution, and not as a reprimand. Mr. J. O'CO N. NELL again rose and insisted on his right to address the House amidst the greatest confusion. The SP EAKER —I must can on Hon- Members to support me.—(Loud and protracted cheers, which lasted several seconds.) I have already stated that the Hon. Member for Surrey was not out of order, and I beg now that we may pro ceed with the debate.—(Renewed cheers ) Mr. DRUMMON D said—l was not out of order, and I was not reprimanded ; but I was provoked by repeate t and offen sive interruptions to say the things which, in the heat of argument, escaped my lips. I have not been reprimanded, and I do not in substance retract one word, but I say that, if I have given offence, whether merited or unmerited, to any individual, I humbly beg his pardon.—(Hear, hear.) Now I will go to another subject. Cardinal Wiseman has told you that his model and example is Thomas a Becket, in whose footsteps he would tread. The fate of Thomas te Becket (continued the Hon. Member), cruel and unjust as it was, was only (he end of a long series of disputes, the object of all which was to do what is now attempted—namely, to create a hierarchy and establish a system which should ex empt the priesthood from the control of the temporal power. The Protestantism of England had been characterised as de moniacal. (Oh, oh.) Oh ! they did not like to heaa re torts: but he asked simper ego auditor tantum, nun quam reponam ?—(A laugh ) His belief was that this Bill, as far as Ireland was concerned, was manifestly unjust and uncalled for; but he thought they must pass a law to prohibit car dinals from living in this country.—(Hear, hear.) They must pass a law to m .ke all deeds done under this canon law null and' void de facto. They must enact a law, as to convents and monasteries, similar to that existing in Bava ria, and not permit voes to be taken ; and he would extend the Mortmain Acts, so as not to allow any dying man to be robbed, whatever might lee his sect.—(Hear, hear.) In ad dition to this, his belief was that they had arrived at a state of things not only with regard to the Roman Catholics, but also with regard to the Churches of England and Scotland and all similar bodies, in which they could go on no longer. There was a book which some of them were not allowed to read, and that book contained several letters addressed to laymen, and two letters addressed to two bishops. In the letters to the laymen nothing was said about the love of money, but in the letters to those two bishops it was declared that the love of money was the root of all evil. It was not necessary that they should imitate all that their fathers had ne, but they should do their duty in their generation, as their fathers had done in theirs. Ile did sot deny that the suppors of religi n by the State might at the commencement have been useful; he did not deny that monkery might also have been useful ; but it was his firm conviction that these institutions had come to an end, and that their utility had ceased, and that it would be impossible to continue them. It was the tendency of priests of every sect to domineer over the people, and he would conclude, in the language of Cardinal Bembo, when he said he mixed himself up with the concer , s of priests with great reluc tance, for he generally found them guilty of all human wickedness, covered with a diabolical hypocrisy. The SPEAKER having left the chair for a few minutes, the House presented a scene of great excitement, Hon. Members assembling together in groups and engaging in earnest conversation. Mr. H. Grattan crossed the House, and addressed a few words to Mr. Drummond. accompanied by very animated gesticulations, and retired to his seat, fol lowed by that Hon. Member, and Mr. H. Grattan was after wards surrounded by a large number of Irish Members, with whom he was engaged in conversation when the Speaker re turned. The Speaker having returned, orde- was restored, and Sir James Granam, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Moore rose to ad dress the Hon ae Sir J. GIte.HAM having been called upon by the Speaker, proceeded to say—l am glad, Sir, a short pause has taken place in our proceedings, and 1 hope no thi ng w ill f a ll Irons me that will tend to disturb the gravity of this debate, and the calmness with which the great subject now before us ought to be discussed.—(Hear, hear.) I bend, Sir, implicitly to, your decision in every matter of order. I did not think it was possible, until within the past half-hour, that any thing would 1 ave aggravated my sorrow on account of the revival of this painful discussion, in which the subject of re ligion is involved ; but I must say, that what has just oc cursed has further excited my most extreme regret.— ( Hear, h e ar. ) as l h e a h v e e la s r e — en se a igneenethleuaaiant:d3 h an h s . accomplished is subjecthed gen tl e man and . from him, . w — e ( rd H e e t a h r e , t h f e e a l ) I will that he was discussing, as entirely to forget what was due to the feelings of a large body of gentlemen sitting iu this u g a t l i h t e y not t u a s u e o y n terms m y lips both with respect individually to Hon. Members of who eve devoted this House, in reference to their veracity, and still less shall I think of repeating an allusion_heeera; ma h to the female of with pe f e e p e e t a t e i ci n relatives ( t U he tl ir God, .according to their ) themselves to those gentlemen — ( consciences, in lives of seclusion and in lives of chasti.y,— (Cheers.) The orders of the House may on this occasion have been observed to the letter, but if Roman Catholic Members are to sit here and to take part in our debates, how are the rules ~ nd orders of the House to be maintained if scones like this are to be repeated?—(Hear, hear.) Asser tions of the kind that have been made, and the tone and manner in which they have been made, must not be re p eated, if the freedom of deuate and the order or rules of the House are any longer to be maintained.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member has said that he would enlarge the scope of this debate, and he has treated us to a subject entirely of a reli gions kind. I shall venture also to enlarge the scope of the debate, but I am happy to say I shall treat it as a political question.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, Sir, I think that I should ill discharge my duty, considering the immense extent of field now open on the question before us, if I detained you any longer by those preliminary remarks, and I shall proceed at once to enter into the subject under discussion.--(He ar , hear.) Having, in a short manner, addressed the House on a former occasion with reference to, this subject, I shall, in what I mean to ad dress to you, repeat two admissious I made on a former oc casion. lam glad to make them, as they will tend to clear the ground I intend to occupy. In the first place, I said, what I now repeat, that I do think that the language used by the Pope in this rescript, and by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral letter, was arrogant in the extreme, and needlessly offensive to the feelings of the great Protestant community of this country.—(Cheers.) And I shall go further, and make this second admission, that I think it was extremely difficult for the servants of the Crown to have passed by that offence, which had deeply wounded the Protestant feeling of a large body of the community of Great Britain, in Silence and con tempt.—(Hear.) And I do think it might have been neces sary, and probably was necessary, in some authoritative way, to re-assert those great Protestant principles which were fixed at the Reformation—which were vindicated at the Revolution—which were confirmed by the Act of Settle ment, and which were ratified on two memorable occasions by the solemn compacts which were entered into, first on the union of Scotland with England, and subsequently on the union of Ireland with Great Britain.—(Hear.) I will not new enter into the question that its raised by the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as to the various modes by which this might be done. I will not now discuss whether it was possible to issue a royal proclamation, a s _ serting strongly the supremacy of the Sovereign relative to all temporal matters; and also her spiritual supremacy a s acknowledged by the members of the Church of England, and as established by its rules, and generally appealing t her subjects to maintain the principles to which I have alluded, as having been settled at the ileformati ;n, at the Revolution, and by the Act of Settlement.— (Hear.) I will not, either, discuss whether it might be posssble to adopt resolutions by the two Houses of Parliament, tobe embodied in an address, and sent up by the two Houses to the foot of the Throne or discuss the third suggestion which the Hon. Gentleman made, that the offence which was given should be matter of direct communication with the Court of tome through the medium 'of a special embassy.—(Hear, hear.) There was one suggestion of my Honourable Friend to which I could not give my assent after the experience of the last summer in the Mediterranean ; that was to meet the thunder of the Vatican by the more formidable tiltuader of her Ajettfq floOti Pc* the orders of Sir William Parker, at Chita Vecchia or Ancoe.a. ( Hear, hear.) The question before us is narrowed as to the srav in which it is p:op - ,sed t - meet this ag4res sion if legislaiiim h, the right mode of meeting it — and if so , if this be the right Bill to promote it.—(Hear, hear.) When I say this Bill, I hardly know whether it is my duty to dis cues the Bill in the shape I hold it in my hand, or in the amended shape in which the authors of the Bill propose to prim it.— (Hen., hear.) The strict rule of the House, and the most proper rule, would lead me to discuss this Bill as it is, and lam very much confirmed in my decision so to do, for I confess rnv own first impression, when I' heard the altera tion that would be made in Committee by her Majesty's Government, was to entertain great doubt whether the pre amble of this Bill, taken in connexion with other laws, would not carry into effect the provisions of the second and third clauses.—(Hear.) Teat was my impression at first; I had great doubt about it; but that impression was subse quently very much strengthened by the opinion quoted by the lion. Member for Dundalk, which I hold in my hand and which was given by three eminent counsel—Mr. Bethel!, Mr. Bramwell, and Mr. Surrege. Those gentlemen, being authorities of the highest order, have given deliberately their opinion that the first clause with the preamble would in fact carry into effect all the provisions of the second and third clauses which her Majesty's Government proposed to exclude. (Hear.) That assertion was made before her Majesty's Solicitor-General addressed the House—(Hear, hear)—but I never heard that he grappled with the ques tion. It was not levity, lam sure, that caused him to pass it over, and if it be not levity our position is a remarkable one ; in that event, I apprehend, her Majesty's Government would be bound to vote against the second reading of the Bill.—(Laughter.) The first Minister of the Crown said most frankly that the second and third clauses were con trary to their intentions, that they were clauses they would not carry into effect. He said the second and third clauses interfered with ordination in Ireland, and the collation to benefices and traversed bequests made to bishops and priests and their successors, and altogether would produce such an effect as he neither contemplated nor desired, and that it would be his duty to withdraw those clauses —(Hear, hear.) But, really, the withdrawal of the second and third clauses will have no effect while the preamble and the first clause stand.- (Hear. hear.) Then, Sir, her Majesty's Government must feel that it is impossible for them, acting under a sense . of duty with reference to the second and third clauses, to maintain the first clause, if it have the effect which I appre hend they are not prepared to maintain.—(Hear.) I shall now pass on to other considerations—to far greater and higher considerations. My principal objection to the Bill is first, that it is an extension of a penal enactment ; and in the second place, that it is the reversal of a policy, and cal culated for doing great evil.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Now, Sir, I am at once met by the serious difficulty which almost always meets us whenever we legislate In the va'n hope, where a question of religion is concerned, of reconciling the conflicting interests of Great Britain and Ireland.—(Hear, bear.) And if I had any doubt upon this matter before I heard the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, I cannot now entertain the slightest doubt that there never was a matter bearing so strongly upon the peace and good-will of Ireland towards this country, or of greater importance than the Bill we are now discussing.— (Hear, hear.) I must, however, observe that I entirely agree with her elnjesty's Government in thinking that, as they conceived the rights of the Crown were affected by what is termed Papal aggression, and as they resolved to legislate upon the subject, it was impossible to deal separately with the case of Great Britain as contradistinguished with Ireland. —(Hear, hear.) I think with them, that if there be legislation of this kind attempted, it should be legislation embracing the whole of the United Kingdom, and a great additional objection to the argument of legislation being the way to meet this aggression, is that it is absolutely neces sary, if ysu legislate for England, to embrace Ireland, and to deal with the whole of the United Kingdom.—( Hear.) And what falls from one of the law officers of the Crown who has addressed you? It is quite clear from what the Solicitor-General has said, that circumstances that arose in Ireland have wore to do with this Bill than even the arrival of Cardinal Wiseman or the intention to found a hierarchy in place of vicars-apostolic.—(Hear, hear.) What was the circumstance on which he dwelt? He was pleased to de• signate the prelate who is at the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, as an Italian monk.—(Hear, hear.) And not satisfied with that, he dwelt upon the Synod of Thurles as one of the princi pal reasons why this legislation was necessary; and what was the statement he made? He says, this Bill is effectual for the purpose of doing what? These are his words; he says, " They could not have an episcopal jurisdiction—they could not introduce the canon law—they would not as semble any synod to oppose the decrees of the Imperial Parliament, unless they were bishops with territorial titles, and that this Bill effectually prohibited."-- (Hear, hear.) Observe, by striking at territorial titles, it is the in tention of this Bill to put down the organized episcopacy of Ireland, and to deprive them of the power of meeting in synod ; and the reason assigned is, that the Pope, the spiri tual head of their Church, selected as a person to place at the head of the prelacy a clergyman of the Church of Rome— a person whom he designates as an Italian monk—(Hear.) If this Bill be useful for any purpose, 1 doubt the law of the Solicitor-General or his description being accurate; but if his description be accurate, then I say all that was done in 1829, a 'mating the Roman Catholics to an equality of civil rights, is rendered as nothing by the blow you now direct against them. For 200 years—long before Catholic emancipation - there was an organized episcopacy in Ireland ; the canon law did prevail in Ireland, unmatilated and undisturbed by our legislation, and, whether designated synods or not, the Ca tholic prelates of Ireland did assemble, and meet, and come to conclusions on all matters spiritually affecting the people of that country, and published their decisions, which had the effect of synodical meetings. And if the purpose of that Bill be what the Solicitor-General said, and its effect what I be lieve he is wrong in stating it to be, then most undoubtedly the blow you are going to inflict is infinitely more severe than any fetter on the freedom of Roman Catholic worship in Ireland that existed under the penal code, and previous to the year 1829.—(Hear, hear.) I must be permitted since this question presents itself to my mind in this aspect, and with reference to what will be the bearing of this measure upon Ireland, shortly to retrace our policy with regard to hat country ; and, Sir, I have lately been struck by reading a publication which within a short period has been given to the world. I mean the correspor dence cf the late Lord Londonderry, better known by the name of Lord Castlereagh. It contains letters written at the time of the Union, and there is amongst them a secret letter written by Lord Corn wallis to Lord Castlereagh in 1800 ; which appears to me to be full of wisdom and of warning.—(Hear, hear.) He was a man distinguished for the great services he had rendered to his country in every part of the world, and at the time of writing the letter he had been just discharging the duty of suppressing by force of arms a rebellion in Ireland.— ( near.) He had succeeded, and it was to be expected that, flushed by a contest of that kind, and recent successes, he would have been the very last to have councillerl what is termed concessions to the Roman Catholics of Ireland • but what was the lesson of wisdom which he taught? He said that if the Government of this country at that time promoted the union, it should be promoted as the means of e ffecting a great end, and that great end was the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, the admission of L Lo o r r d d Cornwallis, laymen to pe r f ec t e q uality of civil rights, and some endow- Grenville on this a s did endow ment for the R oman Catholic!.--(Hear, bear.) Mr. Pitt and s e t l l y e coincidedrea hwho i o n opinion Nras hi with Lord en rdC ti a r Castlereagh, Ire land. Lord Clare gave an unwilling consent to the union ; he came over to England and used his influence with Mr. Pitt to throw aside the condition of immediate emancipation and endowment, and made his support of the union con ditional on the surrender of that portion of the policy of the Government.-- (Hear, hear.) Lord Loughborough obtained the ear of the King, and when his consent was asked to that portion of the policy, King George 111. positively refused his consent to emancipation.—(llear hear.) Lord Cornwallis was unwilling to remain in Ireland under such circumstances, but he wrote a letter to Lord Castlereagh—a secret letter—and, with the permission of the House, I will read it: - " Holding Ireland on our present tenure, how are we to make head against all Europe leagued for our destruction? Lord Kilwarden again spoke to Littlehales on the subject, and told him that the Catholics placed their trust in me, and in sinuated that his object of my remaining in the Government Ater the completion of the u son, was to carry the point for them. Whatever Lord Loughborough's opinion may be of the practicability of concession, he will, in a short time, or I am much mistaken, find it still more impracticable to resist." - Vol. 3, p. 418. "Timid men will not venture on any change of system, however wise and just, unless their fears are alarmed by pressing dangers."—Vol. 4, p. 20. "The evil genius of Britain is the proscription of the Catholics."— Vol. 4, p. 13. Now, this is the course ; but perhaps the House will allow me to refer to a subject of a more lively though not a less instructive character. Lord Cornwallis failed in being able to obtain any solid advantage for the Roman Catholics; but failing in that, he did not with hold from them that which was courteous if not agreeable to their feelings. Now, here is a letter written in very familiar terms, by Mr. Cooke , then the under-secretary of Lord Castlereagh. He says:— "We had a dinner at the Castle yesterday. The Titular Primate of all Ireland, the Titular Primate of Ireland, the President of Maynooth (and other noblemen and gentlemen whom he names) formed part of the company." He adds, "We were all very cheerful and pleasant, and the Lord- Lieutenant made all the play."— (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Now, he did not hesitate to show them courtesies, and that not by the exhibition of vice-regal splea fours, but by in viting them to the Castle, and giving them their designa tions of" titular primate of all Ireland," and " titular prim ate of Ireland." - Now, Lord Granville writes also to Lord Cas tlereagh, and h e says, " to neg l ect t h e C at h o li c c l e rgy, or to depresstheri them in their stati on , or l essen th e ir influence with flocks, must, I think, while so large a portion of the Irish nation profess th e C a th o li c re li g i on , b e t h e ver y reverse of wisdom." ---t Hear.) Bat, notwithstanding all these warn ings, until 1829 no concession was made to the Roman Ca tholics. Now, what happened in 1829? Why, "the Con queror of a hundred battles," the firmest man in all the world —the firmest in resistance where a senseof t duty compelled him to resist—the Duke of W 11 . e ington—(Cheers)—he, in concert with Sir R. Peel and Lord Lyndhurst, who had been the greatest opponents of concession on principles which they never hesitated to avow, and which they defended in Parlia ment with the greatest ability, without any change of opinion, yielded reluctantly to an overwhelming necessity, and made this concession at last, which Lord Cornwallis and Mr. Pitt had wisely intendei to make at the time of the union. (Cheers.) Now, was this done partially or hesitat ingly by those eminent persons? It was my good fortune to be associated with the Duke of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst, and Sir Robert Peel on the first occasion on which they really resumed and enjoyed power after the concession had been made. Did they ever hesitate to give effect in its broadest sense to the new policy which circumstances had compelled them to adopt? Some one said on a former occasion that the tenderness of Sir Robert Peel's Government in matters re lating to religion was ever shown to the Catholics. I don't think the Protestant Dissenters can be so ungrateful as to forget some of the concessions that were made,;to them. The Dissenters Chapel Act cannot be forgotten; it ought not to be forgotten, because it was the occasion of the memorable speech of my late lamented friend, Sir W. Follett, which was the noblest effort of Parliamentary oratory he ever made, and it was his g reatest and last.— (Hear , himr.) But with respect to the Catholics, that was the policy of the' Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. Did they cast a longing eye towards the rev val of the civil code ? What was the Bequests Act? It indicated pretty plainly their desire to conciliate the feelings of the Catholics, so far as w. s consistent with the maintenance of the Established Church in that country. But this is not the whole case. What was the conduct of Lord Lyndhurst, the Lord Chancellor of that Government, acting with the full concurrence of the Cabinet, and with the concurrence of Lord Stanley? kid he not propose in the House of Lords the entire repeal of the statut e o f Elizabeth which prohibited the receipt in this country of bulls from Rome? The Bill came down to this House, indeed, in a state somewhat anomalous, I admit: we Proposed the entire repeal of the statute; the House of Lords consented to the repeal of the penalties, but left the offence, without the penalties, still standing in the statute. Now, this evening, when the House was not, so full, the Hon. Member for Cork county (Dr. Power) referred to what passed in 1829, when this particular penalty was inserted in the Relief Act, which this Bill now seeks to extend, and said an impor tant proceeding took place iu the House of Lords in Commit , tee with respect to that Bill. The clause imposing a penalty of 104 f.. Pima_ the Milumptio of title dexiyed from boo oval- pied by prelates of the Established Church was proposed by the Duke of Wellington ; and when it was so proposed by him, he stated expressly thst be did not tender it as any se curity whatever for the Established Church. I will read you hie words. He said, "It is certainly no security; but it will give satisfaction to the United Church of England and Ireland." Now there is a moat remarkable circumstance to which the Hon. Member for Cork referred. In 1791, the Irish Parliament took a course exactly similar to that which her Majesty's Government now called upon us to take, and passed a law to prohibit the assumption of any such titles in Ireland. How lone did that remain in the statute-book?, Let the House observe the period when it was passed; it was in 1792, when we were still at peace with France. -(Hear, hear.) In 1793 circumstances were changed; Louis XVI. was beheaded, and we were at war with re volutionary France. The right of voting was given to Roman Catholics in Ireland, and the Act of 1792, prohi biting the assumption of those titles, was summarily re pealed. - (Hear, hear.) But the Duke goes on, and he says, " This was one of the incidents which made it so difficult to legislate on this subject at all." Her Majesty's Ministers are now well aware, I dare say, how prophetic that warn ing was. -(A laugh.) He save, "He was aware this clause gave no security to the Established Church, nor benefited it in any way ; but it was inserted to give satisfaction to those who were disturbed by the assumption of those titles by the Catholic clergy." The Bishop of Durham, a moat distin guished prelate of the Established Church and the Divinity Professor at Oxford, repudiated this clause altogether; he says he does not desire it as any security; it is no: security whatever, and he does not ask for it. And Lord Chief-Jus tice Tenterden tells you the clause would be inoperative, and he proposed that which would be perfectly operatiie, namely that, the acceptance of the title by whomsoever given, on the part of a prelate should be made a misdemeanour. The Duke said, "That would be perfectly operative ; but I must resist this clause ; it would be a statutable recognition of the power of appointment by usurpation, and to such an admis sion of usurpation I will not be a party. - (Hear, hear.) Now again, I must take the liberty of repeating what was stated by he Hon. Member for Cork as a remarkable circumstance. Lord Malmsbury, who had been the strenuous opponent of all concession to the Catholics, made a speech on that occa sion, which is an exact summary of the arguments on this occasion ; he said, " I think the exclusion of Roman Catho lics from Parliament is a bond fide security, but Sem have decided against that security;" and then he says, "the clause about assuming titles is a joke, and worse than a joke, for it will have the effect of pro ducing the very agitation which you are' seeking to allay."-(Hear, hear.) Now it has been a dead letter, or nearly so, in Ireland. Dr. M'Hale has somewhat. ostenta tiously, I had nearly said openly, transgressed that law. Lord Lorton called on Lord Melbourne to institute a prosecution, but Lord Melbourne, after deliberation, told Lord Lorton that he was not prepared to incur the responsibility of di recting any such prosecution to be instituted.-(Hear, hear.) The Duke of Wellington was present on that occasion-the author of the only penalties which were needlessly inserted in the Relief Act; and what did the Duke say? Did he stimulate Lord Melbourne to proceed? Quite the contrary. He joins in giving his entire approval of the prudence which dictated the refusal of Lord Melbourne. - (Cheers.) Now, in arguing this matter, it is necessary to observe, the distinc tion between the theological and legal part of the question, and the spiritual and temporal. Now there is no` doubt-and we, the Protestant part of this House, are nappnsed to such an assumption of power-there is no doubt the Pope of Rome has claimed spiritual jurisdiction over all baptized souls within this realm. That is an assumption of the Pope which bears date long prior to the Reformation, which was not withdrawn at the Reformation, which ~ has never been abated, and that power of the Pope has existed undiminished and unabated from the earliest times down to the present moment. Now, I conceive that the exercise of this essential power, whether it has been by vicars apostolic, as in Eng land, or by the intervention of a hierarchy, : as in Ire and, where a hierarchy has existed without interruption for cen turies - (Hear, hear) - is a question of very secondary import ance. The question is-are you prepared fo'deal with the pretension itself? and I say our forefathers Were wiser, and, until I see you commit the error, I think yet will be wiser too.- (Cheers.) It lies at the very root of the Roman Ca tholic religion ; and if you seek to combat that pretension, you may strive to eradicate the religion, but you never can succeed ; and if you attempt to eradicate it, away with such a Bill as this- (Loud cheers)-you will have to recur to the blood-stained code of Elizabeth.- (Hear, hear.) That code signally failed, and so signally failed, that even in my time, by the common consent of the greatest men in this House, that code has been regarded as nothing else than a disgrace to our country.-(Cheers.) Now, with regard to the confu sion between spiritual and temporal. lam of opinion that from the earliest times there has been very great care and very great skill shown in the statute law of this country, in making a pointed and distinct definition hetween the spiri tual and temporal power of the Pope. The statutes of provisors and prwmunire were not framed on a denial of the spiritual supremacy of the Popes „and what is it those statutes have done? They have paid, you shall exercise your spiritual power witliottf interruption, as far as the spiritual power 'goes;"'` but we will check you with reference to the temporal, more particu larly with reference to the temporalities 'attached to the bishoprics, and the civil effect of your spirit:dal excommuni cation. No attempt was ever made to daily, as an incident of spiritual power, the right of the Pope te e appoint bishops. But the statute more particularly says, if you shall appoint a bishop, or translate a bishop without the consent of the Crown, then the temporalities shall not follow your appoint • ment. Further, without denying the spiritual effect of your excommunications, we will tell you our courts of law shall not be subsidiary to giving any civil effect to your excommu nication.-(Hear, hear.)-The appointment of bishops is an incident of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and the ter ritorial, division of this country to give e iect to those sp pointment of bishops is a necessary and inevitable conse quence.-(hear, hear.) The statute of Richard 11. sought to confine the spiritual power within narrow limits, but left the utmost latitude to the Crown and the courts of law with respect to the:civil rights. This statute of Richard 11. is a remarkable statute. It is not a dead letter. It was framed in Catholic times, when the Catholic religion was in the plenitude of its power. In the reign of Henry VIII. Cardinal SVolsey was indicted under that statute, and was convicted by the Star Chamber. But since the Reformation has that statute been a dead letter? In Ireland, in the reign of James 1., so late as the year 1608, one Lalor, a vicar apostolic, who exercised legantine power in Ulster, and exceeded his authority, and trenched en the temporal power, was indicted before a jury in Ireland, under the sta tute of Richard, and was convicted. Now, the Solicitor- General put to us pointedly this question, He says,-" want an answer to this question-Has the Roman Pontiff in partitioning the realm of England into provinces and dio c sea, and establishing therein archbishops and bishops, and organizing a hierarchy for the government thereof, invaded the prerogative of the Crown, outraged the independence of the country ; had those of her Majesty's subjects who had lent themselves to the carrying out of this great scheme, and stood by and abetted him, departed from that undivided al legiance they owe to their Sovereign, violated the law of the land, and infringed the spirit of the Constitution ?" Now, if they had trenched on the prerogative of the Crown-if they had violated the law of the land-if they had touched the regality-if they had entrenched on the realm of Eng land, then I say the statute of Richard 11. most unequivo cally applies.-(Cheers.) Our Roman Catholic ancestors de fended the regality of the Crown-(Beer, hear) -and de fended the rights and liberties of the subject ; and they did provide remedies in those times which were found ade quate, and which, since the Reformation, in Ireland, by the verdict of a jury, have been Made applicable. But the language is remarkable in which the law officers of the Crown assigned their reason s for preferring the indictment under the statute of Richard in preference to having recourse to the penal statutes of Elizabeth. The preamble of the statute of Richard is in these words : - " They, and all the liege commons of the realm, will stand with our Lori the King, his said crown and his regality, in all points to live and to die. .Prcemunire for purchasing or pursuing bulls, &c., from Rome, which touch the K in all cases attemined against him, against him, his crown, his regality, er his realm." Now his crown and regality, the subject-matter of inquiry is one that ought to go to a jury. It is for a jury to decide whether what has been done touches the regality, touches the Crown, or touches the realm.- (Loud cheers.) Now , what were the reasons assigned by the law officers of the Crown on th e trial of Lalor for preferring the stat ute of Richard instead of the statute of Elizabeth? They said 1. We made choice to proceed upon a law made More than 200 years past, when the King, the Lords , an d Common!, which made the laws, and the judges, which did interpret them, did for the most, part follow the same opinions in religion which were taught and held in the Court of Rome. 2. These laws were made to uphold and maintain the sovereignty of the King. the liber ty of the people, the undermined and utterly ruined by the usurpation of the Bishop of Rome. For the Co mmons o f England may be an example unto all other subject s in the world in thi s, that they have ever been tender a nd sensi b l e of the wrongs offered unto their kings, and have ev er contended to uphold a nd maintain their honour and soverei gnty. Their faith and loyalty have generally bee n such, as no invaded, you which you have ya ancient laws, the the may apply and bring pretence of zeal or common law, and the commonwea l, which otherwise had b een religion could ever withdraw t he greater part of the subje cts to submit themselves to a fo r e i g n yoke-ao, no t when Po pery was in her height a nd exultation; w h ere of this Act (16th of Richard II.) , and divers o thers of the same kind , are clear and manifest testimon ie s." - (Cheers.) Now , Sir , I contend, to defend the sove rei g n ty of the Crown, no new laws whatever are necessary. - (Cheers.) If that sove reignty ' unexceptionable your case before a jury; bat if y ou seek t o Put down, directly or indirectly, the sp iritual su p remac y of the Court of Rome h as been law, in v over the Roman Catholic population of England, then, in deed, you must embark in a fearful contest.-(Loud cheers.) You must embark in that contest which disgraced England by shedding the precious blood of More, which has for centuries disturbed England, ruined Ireland, and inflicted indelible disgrace on this unhapy realm.-(Loud cheers.) The incident of the spiritual part of th e supremacy is the ri• ght cf appointing bishops to spiritual jurisdiction, and the division of this country into districts for the more perfect exercise of that spiritual power nu also, at least in Ireland, been co-extensive with the exercise of the right itself, and both the common law and the canon of Eng land have always required that it should be limited by places. Now, the Bishop of Rome claims as of right, that he is the Bishop of England, and is this a dormant right? It is only directly as delegates from the Bishop of Rome, that vicars apostolic have ever exercised any Power. - (Hear.) You are jealous of the direct in,e ferenee of the spiritual power of a foreign prince. Your object would naturally be to remove the subjects of her Majesty from th at d i rect in fldence of the ,Fope. Now the vicars apostolic are the creatures of his will and the subjects of his caprice, and from the vicars apostolic where is the appeal now? It lies only to the Pope of Rome in person ; and when you appeal from the vica r s a p ostoli c , the Pope is not bound by the canon law, but may exercise hi s caprice in any way whatsoever.-(Heer.) In Ireland the pope can exercise no such power; and now, with regard to the bishops, why the Pope in the very year of the Revolution (1688) di vided England into four districts ; and a gain, in 184 in he added four other districts. (Hear, hear.) What took place in 1812? Did you not desire that the powers of vicars apostolic should cease, and an organised hierarchy be estab lished in England as in Ireland? Why, sir, in 1812, Sir John Cox Hiepieley, on the part of the British Government (the Pope then being under the inimediete domination of Napo leon, our great enemy) stated that the British Government desired the people of England should thus be emancipated in one d'gret3 from the direct control of the Pope --(Hear, hear)-and Sir John Cox Hippisley was employed by the British Government to propose to the Pope that the vicars apostolic should no longer exist, but that a regular organised hierarchy should be established in England.-(Cheers and loud cries of "Hear, hear.") For reasons erhicb, very likely, were not at all favourable to England, th e Pope de clined the proposition, preferring to keep the power more completely in his hands through the vicars apostolic-(Hear, hear)-so he refused to comply with the suggestion of the British Government, under which a hierarchy might have been established in England as in Ireland.-(Hear.) Sir, I would now say a word as to my Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Oxford, of whom, however, I should be sorry to say anything severe. He asked the other night, "Is it not mon strous that a foreign prince, such as the Pope, should exer cise a discretionary power as to what shall be the organisa tion A hierarchy to this country ?" Sir, with all submits- sion to my Hon. Friend, if the spiritual head of the Roman Catholic Church were to exercise that power, I know not in what hands it can be vested.— (Hear, hear.) It is not denied that it is, and may be an aggressive religion. My Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) did not the other night deny that the Catholic religion, on a fair level, had the right of endeavour ing to diffuse its doctrines, which are not only tolerated, but et which the free exercise is guaranteed by legislation in this country.—(Hear, hear.) But on the other hand, if it may be an aggressive religion, surely it is, at all events, entitled to be a defensive religion; and there may be a disposition to make proselytes from it ; and is it then extraordinary that the spiritual heads of the Church, who have a special care and a special charge as to the providing for the spiritual welfare of their Church, should be the persons to exercise this discretionary power P—(Cries of " Hear.") But then it is said that an incidental effect of establishing this hierarchy will be to introduce the canon law. My an swer is, that in Ireland they have had that canon law for hundreds of years, and I am not aware that, amidst all the evils and sorrows of that unhappy country, any particular importance has been attached to the canon law.—(Hear.) Then, my Honourable Friend (Mr. P. Wood) put in another proposition, that more surprised me still, that we, as the main and Protestant Legislature, should provide for some supposed and contingent evils which might arise to lay members of the Catholic Church front the operation of the canon law, as affecting them; and he gave us the maxim si cutere tuo ut non alienum ladas —but lie knows there is another legal maxim volenti non fit injuria.—(Hear, hear. ) What injury can there arise to laymen from the canon law? Their obedience to it is voluntary; and the moment they feel aggrieved by it they have only to withhold their obe dience to it. (Hear, hear.) This canon law is not recog nized by the law of England.— (Cries of " Hear, hear.") lu cidentally, indeed, in reference to trusts, the courts of equity come across it ; and I am informed that the principle they then apply to it is this—Does it trench on our law ? does it violate any statute? is it at variance with the common law ? - or, is it opposed to any rule of equity? If it be, then away with it ! we have nothing to do with it. Buti fit do not violate any of these principles, then we apply ourselves to it in connexion with that which we consider the will of the testator. This is the sj stem which we have been following for years in Ireland, and ne evil has ever arisen from it.—(Hear, bear.) And therefore why there should be all this horror of the canon law in England, I cannot conceive.— ( Hear, hear.) Sit, I would have gladly here have dropped all further reference to the speech of the Honourable Member for Oxford, but there was one observa tion of his which grieved me exceedingly, for anything failing from him injurious to civil and religious liberty must, considering his known attachment to it, be of great con sequence. He will allow me to say I remember his venerable father, at whose side I fought in the great battle of emancipation, in 1829. And I was therefore the more astonished and grieved to hear those observations from his lips. He told us that the Church of Rome was un changeable, and that, being unchangeable, her doctrines were still as likely to be enforced as ever, and that they might be carried to the extent of even occasionally de throning sovereigns, or relieving subjects and soldiers from their oaths of allegiance! Why, Sir, these are the battered remnants of the old arguments which I thought had been cast aside as filthy rags.—(Loud cheers, and cries of " Hear, hear.) When, in 1829, we consented to admit Catholics to perfect equality of civil rights and power we were culpable beyond measure in coming to that conclu sion if we believe one word of all this - (Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—er thought that their allegiance was tainted, and of that dangerous description which the Honourable Member implied.—( Bear, hear.) But now, tir, as to these territorial divisions. 'Have we no authority on the subject? —authorities why we should consider them more harmless than they are represented? Let me bring under the notice of the House what a prelate of the English Church says of them. Sir, I have seen with regret many of the addresses of the prelates of the English Church amidst the excitement of this period.—(Hear, hear.) I hold, however, in my hand a most honourable exception—an address from the Bishop of Norwich to his clergy. 1 quote him with the utmost plea sure, because I cordially respect his character, and think that such sentiments, proceeding from him, are worthy of the highest commendation.—(lfear, hear.) He says, speaking of this Papal aggression, " this measure, apart from the man ner in which it has been attempted, and the language which has been held officially and unofficially, and in certain well known principles of Romanism which give significancy to what has been done—the measure itself is nothing of which we have any right to complain consistently with our tolera tion of Romanism. An episcopal Church is not tolerated if we interfere with its liberty to appoint bishops, to determine their number and rank, and to bestow upon them any titles provided they do not infringe on any existing rights (the very expression used in the Act of 1829, of which he calls for no extension at all). It might naturally have produced more of amazement than indignation to hear a functionary ' of Rome declare that he governs counties of England as ordinary thereof. Some territorial division, however, is ne cessary for every community of Christians in an episcopal Churcb, and the term for a bishop's district is diocese."— (Loud cheers and cries of "Hear, hear.") That is high clerical authcrity ; the opinion of one of the most eminent prelates of our Church, and it is against this Bill.— (Hear.) Have we no high lay authority? I turn at once to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.—(llear. hear.) Has he not recognised these territorial divisions? Has he not recog nised them most remarkably? I blame him not, because I think the views which led him to write the letter I am about to read were' quite consistent with his duty, and in accordance with that policy which was transmitted to him by his predecessors, and which he has most honour ably and faithfully carried out.—(Hear, hear.) But I think somewhat imprudently he entrusted to Bishop Nicholson a letter which was to be communicated to the Pope at Rome ; and in that letter what are the terms in which he speaks of those terr.torial ,divisions? He had submitted to the bishops certain new regulations. for ,the government of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and had hoped to have been able by these regulations to remove the Papal objections to these colleges. What are the provisions he had made for the purpose of giving some influence to the hierarchy in Ireland in the government of the colleges? He says—" The list of visitors has not yet been settled, but I can haveno hesitation in saying that it will include the Catholic archbishop of the province and bishop of the diocese in which the college is situated. As I entertain a profound veneration for the cha racter of the Pope, and implicitly rely on his upright judg ment, it gives me great pleasure now to ask your Grace to submit these statutes to the consideration of his Holiness, believing, as I do, it may be advantageously compared with those of any similar institution in Europe." Here is a dis tinct recognition of these territorial divisions, " province" and " diocese."—(Hear.) Thus then I have cited an autho rity f oin a prelate of the Established Church, and from the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in favour of these territorial di visions. —( Hear.) Have Ino other authority? What did the Prime Minister say in 1848? The very question of the letter to which I have refei red was brovight under the notice of the House by Sir Robert Inglis ; and it is right I should remind the House that at that time a question had also arisen whe ther there was not an intention at Rome to appoint Dr. Wise man Archbishop of Westminster; and the question was asked by my Hon. Friend upon that point. The Noble Lord bad denied all knowledge of any such intention, and said if his consent were asked to that, he was not prepared to give it. But as to those territorial divisions of England, I really do not think any opinions can be stated so clealy on this subject as in the words of the Noble Lord himself, which I am about to read, representing as they do my own opinions exactly. With regard to spiritual authority, whatever control is to be obtained over the spiritual authority of the Pope, can only be obtained by agreement for that end. You must give cer tain advantages to the Catholics, and then obtain from the Pope certain advantages in return. Among which we may stipulate that the Pope should not create any new dioceses without the consent of the Queen. But, unless you have an agreement, you are not in a position to have any such advantage.—(Hear, hear) You may say you will have nothing to do ith any arrangement of that kiwi, nor give any authority to the Catholic religion in England. But then you must leave the spiritual authority of the Pope utterly unfettered.— (Hear.) You cannot bind the Pope's spiritual influence unless you have some agreement. Although you may prevent any spiritual authority from being exercised by the Pope by law, there is no provision, no law my Hon. Friend could frame which would deprive the Pope of that in ilsence which is exercised over the minds of the Catholics. It is obvious that you cannot by any means prevent him from communicating with the Catholics of this country. You may try to prevent such communications from being opened ; but I think it would be very foolish if you took any means of vigour or energy to effect that purpose.—(llear, hear.) If such communication be not open, it will be secret ; and so long as there are Catholics in this country—and so long as they acknowledge the Pope as the head of their Church—you cannot prevent his having spiritual influ ence over those who belong to his Church.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, I could not possibly express my own opinions be•ter than in the words of the Noble Lord. Within five days of the period when the Noble Lord exp• essed these opinions, the Attorney - General had to dis lmohpeeorassefi measure ed diplomatic l h aom i m c h baetti h he a(rd:itcarot. Pearson)one s be w fo i t r h e tqheuee limitt i o o i u n h e A l en e p a r House.prethhuaesditheopos sameed T Rome, by inserting the words " touching and concerning international relations." The Solicitor-General oppssed the introduction of these words on the ground that " if those words were inserted in the Bill, in cases where three was the least ingredient of a spiritual character it would be injurious. Questions of a mixed character might arise, though in the result they were of a temporal nature, and in such no interference could take place. Suppese the Pope introduced any regulation as to the Roman Catholics of Canada, this qualification would prevent any interfer ence." Where, then, is the assault on the regality—where is the attack on the rights and liberties of the subject—where the attack on the prerogatives of royalty ?—(Cheers.) "As the law now stands, the Pope may divide the country into bi hoprics and archbishoprics—(Laughter)—and if the amendment were agreed to he might do so still ; but if we had free diplomatic relations with him, the British Go vernment might interfere to prevent such a division." — (Cheers and laughter.) I have already told you it is doubt ful whether, by imputation at least, the first clause does not carry fully into effect what in terms is enacted by the second and third clauses. There is high legal authority for saying that it does. (Hear, hear.) I have already put it to you that if that be so the Government must withdraw their Bill. But take it that it is not so is this a question in relation to its effect upon the social condition of Ireland that can be left in doubt ? (Loud cheers from the Irish Members.) I have permission to read to the House a letter of Archbishop Mur ray's, which I will do. See if you should chance to make a mistake what may be the effect on the whole social frame work of Irish society, so far an seven-eighths of the whole population are concerned? Archbishop Murray says:— Dublin, March 3, 1851.—Our Church is essentially episcopal. Our sacred ministry could not be carried on without priests, we could have no priests without bishops, and no bishops but through the authority of the Pope. It is his bnsiness not only to name our bishops, but to point out the limits within which this jurisdiction is to be circumscribed. The portion or surface which contains the Catholic flock within those limits may be called a district, or a see, or a bishopric, and the individual appointed to ordain priests, and to carry on the other neces sary functions of the ministry therein, may be a vicar apostolic or a bishop in ordinary, with this difference, that the former is removable at pleasure, the latter is permanent, and therefore one step removed from the immediate action of Papal influence. Except as Archbishop of Dublin I could not ordain one of my priests. I could net give a parish, I could not communicate with the Pope, I could not correspond with foreign bishops, I could not give letters dimissory, or ordination letters, or letters testimonial. I have laid my hand on an oal letter of ordination, which was not for warded to the individual :for whom it was intended. It was written in 1828. Were I to issue that letter nos! I should be liable to a fine of 100/. Though in many stances we were obliged to act in disobedience to this to just law, we knew that Government was not dispos e d s act harshly towards us. The spiri t which' ; "g a g first te the proposed law seems to be very different. tom a p riest to view of clause 2 it might be inferr ed that h w ere nust r depend on such a document as I enclose, P _a e pp h e a a d before a court of law as a laym an ; h a i narriagi whi:h nerformed might, on that ground, b e declared invalid; and a discontented husband might take" to himself another wife without the imputation of bigamy. This in regard to clause 2, and although it is true that the Government have con sented to withdraw clause 2, and I understand that proposi tion is to be resisted; but whether the clause stand or not, if WY View be correct, 41 1 the evil consequences Foliated out by Archbishop Murray will result even if you pass the Bill in its dente of the dead and the living. My Noble Friend says amended form.-;Hear.) The Solicit(); General now declares that English Protestants are faithful and sincere, and he that there has been an invasion of the prerogative of the i says he depends upon the warm attachment of the vast ma- Crown and liberty of the subject.--(llear, hear.) I answer I jority of the people of this country to the Established if what has been done is illegal why do you not appeal to the Church of England. He believes that attachment to be courts of law?-(Cheers.) With respect to the division from the heart-that there may be a movement on the sur d the country into districts, we have seen for a long face, but that there is a deep strong under-current of affec time past arrangements made for ordaining priests and tion- ever flowing beneath. He believes that their religion exercising spiritual jurisdiction by vicars-apostolic in is, written upon their hearts' core. But, if that be so, then this country, and by a hierarchy in Ireland.-(Hear, there is no need or occasion in England far this Bill-- hear.) I am not aware that these territorial divisions (Hear, hear) - and nothing in Ireland to call for or justify confer any temporal power. Since nonconformity has it.-(Bear, hear.) I feel such confidence in the wisdom ef ceased to be illegal, and Anglican bishops of our own Parliament, that I hope confidently that this Bill will never Church no longer exerc ise power over the whole of the in- pass into a law. The Right Hon. Baronet conclud -d his habitants of their district, but over such only as are within speech amidst loud and prolonged cheers from all sides of the pale of their own Church-there is no jealousy of episco- the Rouse. pal interference on the part of nonconformists.-(Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL was received on his rising with a re- My Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) has let out the real truth. It is that newel of the cheering, and with ironical cheers from the Irish there is a Roman Catholic bishop's throne established side by Members, which prevented his proceeding to address the side with the throne of the Anglican bishop.-(Hear, bear.) House immediately. He said,-I hope the House will in- That is the real reason of all this special anger. - (Hears dulge me while I make some observations in defence of the hear.) And you say, besides, in enumerating your objet- present Bill-(Oh, oh! and cheers)-and in defence of the tions, that there is something of a foreign influence govern ing this Roman Catholic Church. Now that has been dis- general principle which is contained in this Bill. However cussed often and often before.-(Hear, hue.) It was this Bill may be described as insignificant, or however its weighed well in the balance and found wanting, when we provisiens may be described as inefficacious, the House will were passing the Emancipation Act.-(Cheers.) If, then, not have failed to observe that on one side and on the other you question the political tendencies of the Roman Catholic there has been the greatest zeal and the greatest persever- Church, and should come to a decision this night on the ance shown in commending or in blaming this Bill as fit or grounds that the Church of England is in danger, I say ycu as unfit to be adopted. The House cannot but observe that are undertaking legislation which will neither %satisfy that whatever the provisions of the Bill may be, when you ex doubt nor remove that danger. For if yon commence amine into details, there is some great principle involved, thus, you must go further. You must reverse the principles some question upon which it behoves the Commons of Eng of the Toleration Act, you must repeal the Emancipation Act land deliberately to pronounce. Sir, that question is in my itself, and then. 1 warn them, let the Dissenters of England view not less than this : -For many years since the restore lookno themselves.-(Cheers.) You must legislate, it you tion of Louis XVIII. the Court of Rome has endeavoured to legislate at all, with that spirit, with that object, and with revive pretensions, to attempt domination, to restore supre that motive.-(Cheers.) But something is said vag uely macy, which many thought had been for ever abandoned.- about synods. We are told that there is great danger from (Cheers.) And indeed for some time those efforts were at synods, and that, if we are wise, the synodical action of tended with so little success that they might have the prelacy will be put an end to. Now, allow me to ask, been safely disregarded, if not treated with con are you quite clear, here, as to your interference? Since tempt.-(Loud cheers.) But of late years, and more the legal and constitutional right of public meeting exists in especially since the democratic revolution which took place Great Britain and Ireland, show me how you can prevent in the beginning of the year 184 S, men seeking for some substantially the meeting of the hierarchy being organized, safety, for some plank by which they might escape in the considering the spiritual character and power which would shipwreck, have resorted to the authority, the influeace. the always surround such an assembly, with all the effect of in- power, and the name of the Church of Rome ; and the clergy fluencing, to the utmost possible extent, the conduct of those of that church have seen in that circumstance an opportn who are the members of that church.-(Loud cries of pity of reviving powers which, if they are successfully " Hear, hear.") My Noble Friend complained of the Synod claimed, must be fatal to the liberty of every country it of Thurles, that it had interfered with the question of land- Europe.-(Loud cheers.) :Look at the change that has taken lord and tenant, and that it had condemned the Irish col- place within the last two years. Look at the change, ad leges. I regret that this was so. Obviously no person vested to by the Honourable and Learned Member for Ox here oan feel a more lively interest in the success of these ford (Mr. P. Wood), and by my Noble Friend at colleges than I do. But I say-and this was suggested in the head of foreign affairs, that has taken place the admirable speech of my Hon. and Learned Friend the in Austria. You will see there a specimen and instance of Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer)-a speech that which we allege, and of the abandonment of the se which I can bnt follow-that if there is to be any assem- curities which had been wisely formed-of an arrogation of bling of the hierarchy of Ireland, and they are to discuss authority in the State which the State claimed to itself as any subject whatever, I can see none more germane to indefeasible, You will see a surrender to the Church of their functions, none more legitimately falling within Rome of that which had been carefully and pertinaciously their supervision, than this question-is the people of Ireland withheld from her. Look to another instance, of which to be educated in these colleges? - (Cheers.) But, then, the we had a valuable testimony the other night of one who Roman Catholic prelacy and the Roman Catholic clergy in- bears a celebrated name, and who in that effect gave a proof tervene in regard to subjects of a temporal nature. Well, an- of talent, and showed that he (Sir R. Peel) could relate to swering this, I may say I think 1 remember, during the the House in the most vivid and expressive manner the ex- Anti-Corn-law agitation, a meeting at Manchester of the perience he had himself obtained in another land.-(Cheers.) Dissenting clergy- (Laud cheer: )-convened from every Look to those instances, and I think you will not fail to be part of the United Kingdom. They came to resolutions at convinced that Europe and the friends of liberty, whether in this meeting which were very important resolutions. They Germany or Italy or in any other parts of Europe, must now were returned to this convention from their respective dis- be looking to you ' • and if after all the Protestant feeling trirts as the delegates of the views of their respective con- which had been exhibited-if after the sense of indignation gregations ; and their object was, in which they succceeded, which had been expressed, and when a Bill has been brought to use their utmost influence against the existing laws in before the House by Government, professing to contain a re regard to the food of the people.-( Much cheering.) Then I sistance to aggression-professing to maintain the assertion say that if clergymen are to meet, lam not prepared to le- of the supremacy of the Crown-the Bill should be at once gislate for the purpose of imposing restrictions on their meet- rejected on the second reading, without any clear and definite ing. I am satisfied that, if you are once embarked in this substitute, but merely some hints of resolutions to course, you will be led step by step, whatever the Hon. and be passed hereafter-merely some vague suggestions Learned Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) may of admiration of the feeling which had been exhibited and contend to the contrary, until you have been induced to de- opposed to aggression-I think the friends of liberty through strov not only religious liberty, but civil liberty also.- out Europe will conclude that in addition to all other (Cheers.) Now, I have treated this Bill, hitherto, as a real conquests, that in addition to all other triumphs, the Court and formidable measure. But it has been changed, and it of Rome has obtained this great conquest, has obtained this stands much mutilated from its original proportions. When most splendid triumph- the conquest and triumph over the my Noble Friend at the head of the Government rose, in in- minds of the House of Commonsof England.-(Leud cheers.) troducing this Bill, I listened to him with admiration, and The Right Hon. Baronet who spoke last, referring to many with that respect which his talents always command; and celebrated persons who had been advocates of the Roman as he proceeded, occupying such high ground, and laying Catholic claims, quoted as first and most memorable of them his foundations so deep, I certainly trembled for the result, all the name of Grattan. I will refer also to the name of and shuddered as I imagined what was to follow the great Grattan, because like him (Sir J. Graham) I look no Grat oration. I said to myself (tantcene anirnis calestibus ira?) tan as a man who had studied this question more deeply, how is this to end-is he about to pro' ose the and as one who was not only most imeressive in urging the repeal of the Act of Emancipation? Well, the speech was a claims of ou: Roman Catholic fellow-subjects to civil equa great speech ; the measure is comparatively small. Much lity and to seats in Parliament, but one who had studied the disappointment ensued, anger excited ; and not many hours genius of Rome, and had studied the nature of both Ireland had elapsed before the Attorney-General rose and assiduously and England. Now, what was Mr. Grattan's prediction on endeavoured to magnify the measure, and to show that it was this question? In 1817 he said - neither tolerant nor harmless, that it did strike at synodical " I beg to observe that there is now every reason to hope, action, and that if it did not altogether destroy it, it did at and there is no reason to doubt, but that securities may be all events tend to intercept, the power of granting bequests had. and such securities as the House will perhaps think and beneficial interests in succession to the Roman Catholic desirable. There may be domestic nomination, there may prelacy. In short, the Attorney-General made an elaborate be a veto, there may be both. . . . . The question is, effort to demonstrate that it was generally a most formidable whether any securities whatever will be received. Let me Bill. After this, too much being proved, the Government tell you why. These is a communication between the became horrified at the spectre they themselves had raised; Pope and the Catholic clergy which must end either in an they saw the consequences of their creation, and they fled, incorporation with the see of Rome, or a connexion with the The Noble Lord, in justifying the retreat, said emphati- Government of England ; and if the latter be refused it will tally, and said truly, and fortunate it is that there does be dangerous to the safety of England. You will have the prevail in all cases this restriction upon statesmen-" When Catholic clergy incorporated with the see of Rome, and the I ask to prohibit what I wish to prohibit lam compelled Catholic laity discorporated from the people of England." not to allow what I do not wish to disturb." That is a Now, be it observed that Mr. Grattan, supported as he was true description of a difficulty; and it is one of my on that occasion by the men of all parties of eminence in principal reasons for objecting to legislation of this kind. this House-by Sir Samuel Remaly and Mr. Ponsonby, by You are, no doubt, in a dilemma.-(Hear, hear.) If you Mr. Brougham, by Lord Althorp, Lord Castlereagh, and cut down your measure to a minimum, you run a great Mr. Canning, and by many others who r, se afterwards to danger; and though it may be supposed, it has been most great distinction, said, "You will have one of these two unjustly supposed, that I have any feeling towards Rome, I things ; -you will either secure the domestic nomination of say I should be ashamed to see the weighty legislative bishops and a veto in the han'is of the Crown, or, filling power of this country brought down from its efficiency to that, you will see the whole Catholic clergy incorporated inefficiency, and laid prostrate at the feet of Rome. On the with the See of Rome, and the Catholic laity discorpo other hand, if you seek to escape that, and to render your rated from the people of England." Sir, recent events measure effective, then, I contend, if you do not fail, you will have shown that there was too much truth in Mr. Grat embark in a course of legislation which will be neither more tan's prediction. You have neither the domestic minims nor less than a struggle with the spiritual authority of Rome, tion of bishops, nor have you the veto in the hands of until, as I said before, step by step you will be led to the the Crown. These were the securities proposed in 181 e; very point you surrendered in 1829, and driven to the enact- they were not proposed in 1829; nd you have that now ment of a penal code with all its restrictions. This, there- which did not exist in former times; instead of two very fore, is the dilemma; impotence on your part is disgraceful; distinct bodies-n-mely, Roman Catholics who were Roman and vigour, in my opinion, is dangerous I say dangerous, Catholics in religion, but who had no veneration for the Pope distinctly ; I can ill dissemble it. I think that danger, as it as a temporal power, you have seen by the declarations of relates to Ireland, is the danger of civil war. (Loud cries of the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Camoys, " Hear," and "No, no.") I cannot retract the words; and is that those men are few indeed, who in these days will sepa that an empty threat? Look back to 1829. A tried and rate themselves from any pretensions of the Church of Rome firm statesman, certainly the firmest man that, within -(Cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers)-and who will not affect our day, has been at the head of the Government of this those pretensions, whatever they may be.- (llear.) Now let country, declared to the House of Lords deliberately that me again repeat to the House that this is the prediction of he had seen more war abroad than any man then living, Mr. Grattan, the very man to whom my Right lion. Friend seen all its horrors and triumphed in all its excesses, that of referred, and rightly, as the greatest authority who could be all wars what was most to be dreaded was civil war; and he quoted on this occasion. Now, if that be true which lie pre put the alternative to the House of Lords, either make this dicted-that you have the Catholic clergy incorporated with concession or prepare for that hideous alternative of civil the See of Rome, and that the Catholic laity are in a great war.-(Cheers.) That, after all, is the question still. But, degree discorporated from the r eople of E 'gland, I say it be it is said, the feelings of the people of England hovos us to see whas. is the danger that we are now incurring, have been outraged ; and the language used by the Pope and whether we can have any means of meeting that danger. and by his servants has been offensive to English indepen- I cannot but say I have been greatly struck by the theories deuce. I will not here follow the Hon. Member for the that have been propounded to the House on the subject of city of Dublin (Mr. J. Reynolds) into any artistic comps- religious liberty.-(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member ris; uof the phrases used by the bish o ps of the Roman Ca- for Plymouth, in hie most able speech, told us that it' you had tholic Church, with the bishops o f th e Anglican Church. religious freedom you must allow to those who claim that Assuredly the complaint as to the l anguage u s e d is s o me- freedom that which belonged to their own religion-to their what superfluous. It is as if this were to h a ppen-a parable own church; that if they had an ecclesiastical organization somewhat apposite :-A labourer accidentally jostles me you must permit that ecclesiast cal organization to be com in the highway. I instantaneously turn round and pleted, and therefore you must allow, uncontradicted, any knock him down. I knock his hat off and thing which belonged to the faith which those persons main trample it under foot. I roll it in the gutter. tained. Now, how fir does this pretension go ?- (Hear.) I bespatter him with mu 1. I set the boys on Because the real question ie-which the Hon. and Learned to host him and to pelt him ; and, out of breath, with Member did not touch upon-who is to decide what is cede anger and wine exertion, I lastly call on the police, and give siastical-what is spiritual in these matters ?- (Hear.) Are biro iu charge for the offence he has committed against me. Roman ;:atholies, on the ground that it belongs to their eccle• We have had acrimonious language here to-night with re- siastical arrangements, to make any assumption they please spect to the Roman Catholic Church, and Hun. Gentlemen -to claim soy sway over this realm of England-(hear)-- who rise and express themselves in the heat of debate, may to claim any ;supremacy over the Queen of Englaud-( Hear, have their excuses. But the prelates of the English Church hear)-ane are we to be satisfied by their saying, "This is have used language of which great complaint has been made ecclesiastical - this belongs to our re ligien ?" - (Hear, deliberately in addressing their respective clergy. I think hear.) Would the II( n and Learned Gentleman be satia they ought to remember that that religion which they so de- feed with any assertion thy might make in this respect nounce is the religion, after all, of a great msj rity of Chris- with regard to spiritual and temporal matters? My tendons. Eminent prelates ought, at least, not to forget that Right Hon. Friend seemed disposed to say that religion it is the religion which tempered the genius of Fendon, is a matte: connected with spiritual concerns, and, there which warmed the eloquence of Massillon, which touched fore, it is a spiritual matter ix winch the State cannot in with fire the tongue of Bossuet, and which inspired the terfere with the proceedings of the Catholic clergy. Now tolerant pea of Pascal.-(Cheers.) I trust that lam not suppose they should declare that in Ireland the National trespassing too far on the attention of the House.-(En- Board of Education is dangerous to their faith, and that any c uraging cheers.) I speak at this length only because it is perg n belonging either to the clergy or the laity who as necessary, in self-justification, to state freely and frankly all eisted in carrying that system into effect should be excom th ) reasons which have influenced me.-(Cheers.) Now, municated and deprived of the rites of religion, that being a Sir, it will be remembered that I was one of these who matter entirely spiritual-or suppose they go a step wholly objected to the appropriation clause. I did so for further, and say with regard to the police and military the reason that I did not think it was either right or desn- that a person cannot remain in the police or military under able, or practically politic, had there b: en no other higher a Sovereign who couutenances and sanctions such measures? considerations, to strip the Protestant Church of Ireland of - (Cries of "Oh, oh," and cheers.) Hon. Members say its property, merely with a view of endowing the Roman "Oh !" and I hear one say that that should not be al- Catholic Church. And I will say now, whatever may have lowest ; but that is exactly what I expected, because it been the policy if such an endowment at a former period, shows that you cannot rest satisfied with the assertion of the that that opportunity has gone by.-(Hear.) You can be- Roman Catholic clergy that such a matter is spiritual or stow upon them, the people of Ireland, but sight advantages ecclesiastical, but that you must judge for yourselves in the shape of endowment of their clergy; but just in pro- whether it is Ell or not, and decide according to your judg portion as you cannot satisfy them in that respect., I think went-(Hear, hear)-and here another Hon. Member says the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, whether laity or that cannot be done. Now, having lead somewhat of his clergy, if this be a matter of feeling, if it be reduced to a tory - not only of that history to which Hon. Gentlemen question of feeling between them and the people of England, thought it wrong to refer-that tf the times of the disputes t are eetitled to very peculiar consideration. ( rhe Right Hon. between Catholics and Protestants-but the history of Gentleman here proceeded to quote a passage from a letter of recent times - I must say that trusting to the modratiomnoosf Knox to Lord Castlereagh, which he described as equal, the Sec of Rome as to the distinction between temporal and indeed, e at the cor benwheeanvet.he It tewcrase in eloquence, to anything from Burke, descriptive of spiritual is one of the worst securitiesgyou the respective and relative positions of the Protestant only yesterday I was looking, cursornuy, and Roman Catholic churches in Ireland. The Right Hon. respondence, about the year 1816 e ee i l cing of Naples, and th e letter spoke in so low a tone of voice while reading the tary of State of the Pope aandbie,ll t quite wrong in refusing e letter that we were only enabled to gather detached sen- King of Naples said, yo"nlne'riain lands which you claim you wi eae cb e r e . o l j p nap: Buto fi e d e dtsyeuomicauhpi wasni r mans e a l e g a tm e a b r i enadgt opiniontt o n r a e st ofha tences.) I believe that the Roman Catholic Church in Ire- tribute-in refusing land, the " church of the vanquished," as described in the certainly you can h a r dl y letter I have quoted from, has a moral claim upon England, spiritual censures, because ance ; and, if we were entirelyjurisdictionfarPapaldepend to conception now. (Hear, hear.) upon it country.-t Cheers ) tow, as to the substance of the Bill. I trust the thwehe hav e thouairvigteungai anyzl look first to the names on the back of it ; and sin I better we satisfied with what I find here? What is the first name I tha t Arid one lion. Member said, end my Right - see? The name of Russell.-(Hear, hear.) Is this the Rus spoke last has said, among the rest, in referring 011. Friend who s h o a f ll which a t to wh at ha sell chosen by the city of London as the chain 'on of sell- spoke lately done, that the langua ge whose of the Pope and of the gious liberty ?- (Cheers and laughter.) The Russe llthe „. pastoral is arrogant in the extreme, and needlessly offensive name will go down to posterity as identitiA well- to the people of England.-( Hear. ) Thata dmission peal of the 'rest and Corporation Act, and who, with now to a certain extent; but the question is, whethe r iana it is an proved principles and still nobly dariogt, 12 1 S w hich still admission to the extent which is really required by striving to unrivet the last fetter of Pe rs „ e 7 t t V e next? The the nat( Hear, hear.) Im t b h f us eg t attention o my hangs upon the Jews ?-(Cheers.) an d cheers.) Is Right Lion. Friend, who, 1 a though no doubt he has studied name of Grey. Who is he ?-(Laugfl;etintul who sacrificed this question a good deal, seems, I think, to have mistaken this the nephew of that patriotic No 1 of his youth in some of the most points • H ) ca ll the flower materi a l of it --( ear - must the ambition of a life, and sp ent principles of civil and religious his attention to what really is the character of this rescript of the defence of the great tof the claims of the the Pope ; a t he D ublin I • 'D n e do so I must refer to A Writing r. in the asser i Th liberty, more especia lly _ es e.) R ight Hon. Gentle- Wiseman, in the Review, which I found referred to Roman Catholics ?-( oud cheer in s •) eloquence, like him in his by Mr. Palmer in book the Church. He vs man is like him-like bini in his brilliance ; and sadly " The t on sk m ight ad d,e apostolic see, it is said, charges those who call them dotl him, I ts his name at the back of this Bill.- selves the archbishop s ' and bishop s of the Church established I regret to see - e too, of Russell is there-the hi England Ireland • h bein g intrudersb • favour of the The nem , and with 3 (Hear, hear ) of civil and religious liberty.-(Hear.) .civil power into the sees of those realms; inasmuch as they invariable advocate not well formed. It has been botched. 1 1 k osses-ion thereof in spite and Besides this Bill ai. their predecessors too trig chat A 1 there is a reason fo th M f that see which, r at. y to the detriment of the patriarchal rights o -(Greet cheethg on that bench opposite would not from " sage had been es - Right lion. Fri ends - b e wort hy of the name ami d character of the friends of ercisen in the nomination or approbat ion of all metropolitans c i v il an d r eligiou s liberty if they were adepts in training and b shops. Up te the time of Henry VIII . t his right was cite re) -Ana it shows • by his etatute 25 Henry VIII. tonal laws- (Lou d - perfectly acquiesced in, when: . . tonal skill in this clas of legislation ; and God forbid they e. 2 the nomination was reserved by letters missive to the should ever become expert and dexterous in such a craft.- Kiug, ail the au horny of the apostolic see being s e t as id e (Renewed cheers.) My Noble Friend at the head of the Government, in a late speech, refer.ed to his f. rmer allies, and admi ted of this apostolic see, and such assuitiption of a friends, and compatriots- among them t m Grattan that power never admitted in any part of the Church, were clear in noble spirit fled to join with Fox, Canning, Wilberforce, and tringements of the canons, and constitute an act of twir -1 ask my Noble Friend, if in his conscience he really believes an d intrusion which is null and void in all its con that potion one of those men, who all cordially agreed in the prin- sequences." ciple of the Emancipation Act afterwards passed, would have That is an assertion to this extent. Not noticing approved of this Bill?-(Great cheers.) And if my Noble at present the historical fallacies contained in the statement, Friend can say he thinks they would have so approved it, this is an assertion that that Act of Parliament of Henry then I appeal from the dead to the living. Would Flunkct VIII. is n ull and void in all its conse q uences; that the have voted for that Bill?-(L ou d cheers.) Would Brougham Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London have vote I for that Bill ?-(Cheers renewed.) Does Den - and Winc hester, and the other bisho p s of this re alm, _ no longer man, I ask, approve of thi s Bill ?-(L o ud cheers.) I would exist, the app ointments ther eto being void. Upon this I°l - were here to answer that • (Ch rs question.- ee . Then lows this rescript of the Pope, in which, after naming all new archbishops, it is declared at the there is the great historian of the revolutionary period, a man these n end deeply imbued with Protestant principles-I ask, would decree thatour letters apostolical shall " And we these . Macaulay approve of this Bill? I have tried it by the eid• j n ever at any time be ob j ec t ed against or unpugnee, on pre-