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

"spiritual" matter? lie (Mr. Muntz) called it ex ceedingly temporal.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") He could give the hame of a gentleman who had personal knowledge of the transaction. The question before the Rouse was not one of civil and religious liberty. This country had been subjected to a great and impudent ag gression, which was the foundation of a premeditated and insulent attack on the Protestantism of Europe.—(Hear.) What a feather would it be in the cap of the Pope were he able to say of the people of this country, " See how I have subjected them! Have I not made bishops for lEngland ? Have I not superseded their very church?'' he would do his best to support the independence of the Pro testant religion, believing it for the interest of the Country that the Protestant religion should be maintained. He never would have it said by his children that he had gone out of the way to encourage the influence and increase of a religion which, in his opinion, did not conduce to the inte rests or the prosperity of the country. Mr. SCULLY thought the speech of the Hon. Member for Birmingham would have answered very well before the Passing of the Emancipation Act, for it was directed against the Catholic religion. How the so-called aggression affected the pockets or persons of any one in this country, he could not understand. The receipt only gave to England what had existed in Ireland for 14 centuries. As a friend of religious liberty he opposed the Bill. Members of other persuasions than the Roman Catholic had denied that any aggression had been committed ; and the number of Roman Catholics having increased from 67,000 in 1769, to upwards of 1,000,000, their chapels now exceeding 800, and colleges, monasteries, and other institutions having sprung up, there were good reasons why a change should be made in the mode of govern ing the Roman Catholic Church in this country. What had been done could not be undone. The total withdrawal of a 1611 11 or rescript was very rare ; and there was no reason for • the withdrawal of the rescript establishing a hierarchy. The lion. and Learned Member for Plymouth had shown that the language used in creating vicars-apostolic was similar to that used in the rescript. There was just as much aggres sion in appointing vicars-apostolic as in appointing bishops. The Bill would place the Roman Catholics of England in a different position from the Roman Catholies in the wilds of Australia or the back settlements of Canada. If the pre rogatives of the Crown had been invaded, it might be asked whether these prerogatives did not extend to the colonies? 13 t, if the State paid the Roman Catholic bishops in the colonies, why not allow them to exist here on the voluntary system? The results of the present proceeding would be of a melancholy and serious character as re garded Ireland, where the Roman Catholic hierarchy was recognized by law and custom, by Courts, in Acts of Parlia tient, and in the very proceedings of the House of Com mons. The 24th section of the Act of 1829 had been vir tually repealed by subsequent proceedings; for no chaplain Could be appointed to a workhouse without the recommenda tion of the Roman Catholic bishop; and under the Cha ritable Bequests Act the title of a parish priest to whom a bequest was left must be proved by his credentials received front a Roman Catholic bishop. The statement of the Hon and Learned Member for Dundalk on the effect of the clause in the Bill taken in connexion with the preamble had not been answered. In his pastoral of February, 1851, Arch bishop Murray sail the Biel, though nominally directed against Catholic bishops, was in reality directed against their religion ; and Dr. Ryan had expressed the feeling which pervaded Ireland, where the Bill was regarded with Universal detestation, when he stated at a public meeting that if the Government waived to ruin the country they Could not have adopted a measure more certain to produce that effect. These were the opinions not of persons who Were accustomed to take part in politics, but of men of re tired habits, who interfered little in the public questions of the day.—(Hear.) It was said that public opinion pressed for legislation on this subject. He believed that there was a Certain party in the country anxious for legislation , but their principal object was to cover up and conceal the dis seneions that prevailed in the Church of England itself. He Warned the House against being led away by a cry of danger t te the Church ; a cry which, as the great Grattan observed , °ad always been mischievous to the country; and he trusted the House would consider seriously the consequences likely to follow from their yielding to a cry so fallacious and foolish. (Heer.) Strong charges had been made against Roman Catholics of holding a divided allegiance, but he maintained that the Roman Catholics of this country held as undivided an allegiance to the Crown as the most loyal of their Protes tant fellow-countryman could possibly do. At the passing 9 1 the Emancipation Act in 1829 an illustrious Royal Duke 1 ° another place gave full testimony to this undivided alle giance on the part of Roman Catholics. The same loyalty actuated them now as then, and he hoped no further attempts Would be made in the course of the debate to impugn the conduct and character of Roman Catholics upon that head. "'(Heer, hear.) If proof were necessary to satisfy the House as to the loyalty of that portion of their fellow- subjects, he luight refer to the evidence given before the Committee of 82 5 by the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, in which he explicitly stated that the authority of the Pope was confined alto gether to spiritual matters—that Catholics obeyed him in spiritual matters only, and that in civil matters their alle giance to the Crown was completely undivided.—(Hear.) It 13 94 .8 said the late Papal act was an innovation on the ~est institutions of the country; but he must remind the ;leuse that their greatest institutions were derived from 10 tnan Catholics themselves before the Reformation took etl ect, ant that they could have no desire to i n frin g e in the least degree on those institutions. The Hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) said the recent act of the r is'Pe interfered with the Protestant institutions of the but he gave no proof in support of the asser '°h, and he (Mr. Scully) denied that it was the case. None of the great statesmen of the present day, except those con nected with the Government, supported legislation on this question. A Noble Earl (Aberdeen) in another place ob- Served, with reference to this subject, that "conscience and °Pinion were beyond the sphere cf legislation;" and he also them, that seeing the Catholic Church was tolerated in this country, it followed that they should have liberty to .earry out the organization of their Church in a regular man tier.—(Hear, hear.) These sentiments were, he was happy to l ay, participated in by nearly all the statesmen of the day not connected with Government. The House should not for get that theytwere legislating for millions of Roman Catho lics in this country, and that by passing this measure they Would cast an insult on those millions- 'nw shnolel also bea r in mind the thousands of foreigners, mostly Roman Ca tholic, who would visit us during the present year, and con sider what opinion they would form of the religious liberty of a country which could adopt such a course of legislation.— ( gear, hear.) Millions of his fellow-countrymen in Ireland lilt anxiously on this subject, and he begged the House se riously t• consider the injurious effect which such a measure as the present could not fail to have upon all the interests of that country.—(llear, hear.) kr. HUME looked upon this discussion as one of the l oost unfortunate occurrences that had taken place durin g his ( , ) ng Parliamentary career. The Bill proposed by t he Go 4,croment was the first step of retrogression , which would Place the Irish people in a position by which they would be r etilered a source of weakness instead of strength to the Nintry. To see the House of Commons in this age occupied 14 discussing such a measure was the most humiliating pic ture that could be drawn. They w ere frightened with tdows, and were bringing forward a cts of the mediroval „ 'Res as if they were applicable to the present time. It was m elancholy to see such a measure as this en g a g ing the tlat tention of Parliament to the total suspension of all public business. The promoters of the Bill were acting incon 'latently with the principle on which the Anglican Church ib ielf depended ; for it was a meas ure b y which they sought , deprive one-third of their fellow -countrymen of the right 1 1 1 Private judgment. It was tyrannical, it was against the retestant principle, and against that policy which this v ° l lntry had for the last thirty years been carrying out. And w as it not, above all, melancholy to think that the re ligious Lord, who had always been the advocate of ; e 'igious liberty, should be the man to change that 'Nem which was going on so prosperously in Ireland, and which was placing Protestants and Catholics in that country the best possible footing, and to introduce in its stead 'eological hatreds and religious strife ? It was a grievous a nd a most unaccountable blunder. Within 21 boars after P'ading the Noble Lard's letter to the Bishop of Durham he k eMr. H ume ), in writing to a friend, stated that it was impos ble it could express the genuine sentiments of Lo rd John Russell—that it was impossible one whose life had been d evoted to the cause of promoting civil and religious liberty could have become so changed and have so suddenly assumed e character of a persecutor, and that his belief was the l t etter was the production of some impostor. If, however, i ° o Noble Lord was the author of the letter, then he told his Z i cod that the Noble Lord must have been seeking t o fi nd em '°Yment for the ensuing session, and in that ease the whole !scion would be lost,'and the business of the nation utterly n eglected Five months had elapsed since he (Mr. Hume) thus *xote to his friend, and he would ask the House whether the the very letter. The Hon. Member for Birmingham had 4 1 5 oken of aggression—indeed, " aggression, aggression," was t he burden of his song—but the Hon. Gentleman never stat e d what that aggression was; he denounced the Catholic r eligion, and therefore voted for the Bill in order to put down that religion. If liberty could not exist where the Catholic where existed, in what a situation w as this countr y p l aced , "ere the Catholic population was increasing year after hear! The Hon. Member for Birmingha m would p erm it im (Mr. Hume) to say, that the liberties of England de pended upon its public institutions, and not on the religious opinions of the people. What was meant b y reli g ious liberty ? He understood it to mean, the power of enjoying perfect free dom in one's religious belief, and of using all the forms that Were considered necessary to carry out that belief.lf so, then in what did this alleged aggression consist? It had now been proved that the letter of Dr. Wiseman, which had given 40 much offence, was published without his authority. If that were really the fact, did it not at once t ake away the t hole ground on which this charge of aggression was ,) unded ? For years past it had been allowed that vicars !Postolic sho hi exist in this country, and they were bound 1 ,•? obey the orders of the Pope in everything connected with faith. The Catholics of this country pe titioned to have b in `cops appointed, and in 1848 bishops accordingly took the Pi s tL:e of vicars-apostolic, by which their hierarchy was cona- D'et:ed, and the full religious liberty of the Roman Catholics e stablished. What aggression, what insult was committed that proceeding ? In what manner could it be injurious ° this country ? Why, by Act of Parliament they had again and again admitted the existence of bishops in Ireland . He denied, therefore, that any aggression had been commit ted. Was it worthy of the House of Commons, at this day, con tudering what was allowed to be done in our colonies, to be engaged in passing a measure which it was never intended t illould be carried into effect? It might be fit play for chil ten, but it was really below the dignity of grown-up men to so occupied. It was pandering to the worst passions of men. if the people of England were to be satisfied by having "ach a measure passed, why not confine it to England ? Why !.ttend it to Ireland or to Scotland ? Thy were told that the `! leen had been insulted in having er e supremacy invaded; tut, although that supremacy existed in England , his coun r)ltrien did not admit its existence in Scotland. It was not VI flitted either by the Episcopal or the Presbyterian Church. 4 Ppeared, therefore, to him that there was neither justice, res Son, nor principle connected with the Bill ; but that it was al together an act of oppression towards those who had ~,4 , 4 e rto been free. lie could not support it, because, in his e e nit was a Bill of pains and penalties, and was the i o - tkl.rining of a system which would not be confined to the ``„°flaan Catholics alone, but would by-and-by be extended to .n Dissenters of every denomination. He regretted to see ` 4 s Dissenters, who had been allowed to enjoy their civil ri ghts, joining in the crusade against the Roman Catholics, t ut th d ( v s _ mo p em own.— Cheers ) The Dissenters a vin achieved their own liberty, were . found assisting to -vat the g trammels upon the Roman Catholics. He believed t hat forty-nine petitions were presented from the Wes- I) Yens that night against the Papal agg ression. He did b ?t know from what party in the Wesley an connexion, 1 7nether from the new or the old ; but he hoped the re °rrnea party would outnumber the other, for the Conference wished to keep the people in ignorance and to become them- Sel ves the Pope.—(Bear, hear.) They wished to have the P o wer .of the Pope, and to refuse their congregat ions any right or power w h a tever, for the right of private judg ment W as 7 denied by the Conference, as it was by the Pope . He did "t quarrel with one more than the other, but he did not like i () ° See the Wesleyans calling for measures of repression aga inst a body o f th e i r f e ll ow -Dissenters. If this Bill passed, and w ere l , put into operetion, how would they govern Ir eland ? ould the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. llatchell) get uch eering and tell the House 2—kleoucl and prolonged and ironical `,, l sering from the Irish Members.) The House had hea rd ' 44 °Pinions of the law ofticera of Spglahr,l, Alut they LW a THE SUN, right to hear the opinions of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the first law officer for Ireland, sitting below him.—(Much laughter, arising from the circumstance that the lion. Member tb. s alluded to was Mr. Bernal, and not the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who we believe was not in the House.) He thought the House had also a right to knew the opinions of the Secretary for Ireland.—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) For himself, regarding the mere sure as one of persecution, he should eppose the Bill. Sir F. THESIGER believed it to be the general wish—he wished he could say it was the general expectation of the House, that the House should come to a division to-night.— (Hear, hear.) He felt that he was about to speak upon an exhausted subject, and to a wearied audience; but he most earnestly desired to explain his views, in order that the course he was about to pursue might not be mistaken. It was almost impossible to express an opinion upon this subject without giving offence to the religious feelings of a portion of the community. Protestants believed that an unjust aggression had been committed. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, thought that the course that had been adopted of repressing that aggression involved an invasion of civil and religious liberty. Now, he was anxious to hear how the Bill proposed to carry out the proposed object of the Noble Lord. (Hear, hear.) He had not heard any satisfactory explanation of the mode in which the mea sure before the House would repress the present aggression, or raise any barrier to prevent similar acts in future. — (Hear, hear.) If a person's object were to prevent the assault of an adversary he thought he would not be content with warding off the blow aimed at him, but that sound policy required that he should disable his opponent from further mischief.—(Hear.) Now, what had led to this aggression? He did not believe that any Roman Catholic Member of that House had explained that any religious ne cessity had existed for the important change made by the Papal: brief.—(Hear, hear.) It might be supposed that a full explanation upon this point would be given in the not very reasonable, calm, or temperate appeal of the new cardinal to the reason and good feeling of the English pe ple. There, if anywhere, would surely be found an explanation of the reli gious wants of the Roman Catholic people, and so able a reasoner would certainly not lose sight of the importance of such an argument in favour of the Pope. Cardinal Wise man alleged that the object was to introduce "the real and complete code of the Church ;" that for this purpose the Ro man Catholics must have a hierarchy. lie said that the canon law was inapplicable under vicars-apostolic, that be sides, there were many points that required to be synodically adjusted, and that, without a metropolitan and suffragans, a provincial synod was out of the question. There might have been other motive , _ ur.a th,e ilecniug in cue circumstance. ,t cue present time which made the Pope be lieve that he might succeed in advancing his power and authority in this country ? There had been many deplorable defections from the Established Church many had embraced some of the most characteristic doctrines of the Church of Rome, and some conscientious but ill-judging men, were de sirous of reviving forms and ceremonies which had become obsolete in the Protestant Church because they dii not tend to edification. Others wished to restore the gorgeous cere monies of the Roman Catholic religion. The language used by some of our statesmen, too, might have conveyed to the Pope the impression that any interference on his part in creating a new order of bishops would not be resented.— (Hear, hear.) Above all, he believed a misapprehension had been entertained with regard to the depth of the Protestant feeling which ran with so strong a current through the life blood of the country. He was entitled to assume that it was not from any religious necessity this step had been taken, and, therefore, so far as England was concerned, we were called on to resist the aggression, and by means of legis lation to prevent the intrusion of any foreign autho rity upon us in the manner proposed. But Ireland had, for a long series of years, possessed her Roman Catholic bishops with the titles of Irish sees. The use of these titles had been permitted and sanctioned, and therefore the Government, after having by their connivance justified the course pursued by the Irish bishops, had no right now to extend their legis lation to the sister island.—(Hear, hear.) His Right Hose Friend (Sir J. Graham) in the course of his remarkable speech said that in 1792 an Irish Act had passed for banish ing all the archbishops and bishops from Ireland, but that, so strong was the feeling in favour of complete religious toleration, that next year, in 1793, that Act was repealed. He was astonished to hear that statement, and thought it right to apply to his Right Hon. Friend to know en what authority he made it. His Right Hon. Friend said that the Duke of Wellington, in the debate of 1829, made this asser• tion in the presence of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Eldon, and Lord Tenterden, and that he (Sir J. Graham) thought him self entitled in consequence to consider it correct. Now he (Sir F. Thesiger) had since satisfied himself that no such Act was passed in 1792 - (Cheers)-and he need not say that no Act was passed in 1793 to repeal that Act.-(Hear, hear.) By the Act of 1782 Roman Catholic ecclesiastics were per mitted to remain in Ireland upon registering themselves. But there was a most extraordinary exception in the eighth section, -that no person was entitled to the benefit of that Act who assumed or took any ecclesiastical rank or title whatever.-(Hear, hear.) In the Act of 1795, on which the college of Maynooth was founded and endowed, the Roman Catholic prelates were named after all the laity, and they were named, not by their titles as bishops, but as doctors of divinity.-(Hear, hear.) The practice, therefore, of assum ing ecclesiastical titles was entirely contrary to law. In deed, the Acts against the assumption of ecclesiastical rank and title in Ireland by Roman Catholics were stronger than any passed in England. It was said that, because by the Act of 1829 a penalty was attached to the assumption of titles of particular sees, that Act was a virtual repeal, as to all other titles, of all the Acts passed up to that time. But every lawyer knew that one affirmative Act did not repeal another, unless one was irreconcilable with the other. - (Hear, hear.) The Roman Catholic Bequests Act of 1844 recognized the status of the Roman Catholic bishops ; and in 1847 Earl Grey, as Colonial Secretary, wrote the following circular to the governors of colonies : - " But, as Parliament has by a recent Act (that relating to Charitable Bequests in Ireland) formally recognised the rank of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates by giving t hem pre cedence immediately after the prelates of the Established Church of the same degree, . . . it has appeared to her Majesty's Government that it is their duty to conform to the rule thus laid down by the Legislature." No doubt the House was perfectly familiar with the Chari table Bequests Act. Now, the Legislature laid down in that Act no regulations with respect to Roman Catholic prelates -(Hear)-and therefore the Noble Lord was acting under a complete mistake in exercising authority of a very important description by giving that rank to Roman Catholic bishops in the colonies-a rank which, he thought, corresponded with that which the Legislature prescribed.-(Hear, hear.) True, there was a Commission issued under that Act by the Queen in Council, giving to the Roman Catholic prelates certain rank, corresponding to their style and title ; but it was quite unnecessary to say, that although the Queen could give any rank or precedence to any one of her subjects as she pleased, yet the rank given to the Roman Catholic prelates under that Commission applied only to that Commission, and did not extend beyond it.--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It, therefore, seemed to him, that the Bishop of Sydney was justified in the opinion he expressed, as stated in the papers recently laid before the House, that the mere fiat of the Colonial Secretary, without the sanction of the Sove reign, was not sufficient to confer that rank on the colonial bishops. - (Hear.) So stood the question as to the assump tion of titles in Ireland, and he apprehended there was nothing in these historical details that could justify any one in saying that the situation of Ire'and was so pe culiar and so distinct from that of England that the blow which had been aimed at the Queen's sovereigty in England, and which was a warning to us to defend that sovereignty against a similar blow in any part of her do minions, was to prevent us from taking that warning and from extending our legislation so far as we thought ne cessary for protecting that sovereignty in every part of the Queen's dominions.-(Hear, hear.) And was there nothing in what had occurred which rendered the legislation im perative ? The Pope knew perfectly well that the difficulty of the Noble Lord -as it had been the dif ficulty of ovary Government-was the kingdom of Ireland.-(Hear, hear.) He knew perfectly well there might be danger to the Noble Lord if he extended his legislation to the sister kingdom. What did he do? In the very midst of fez' he created a Bishop of Ross.-(Hear, .) I de r thresv down the gauntlet of defiance-(Hear)- t h h e e a ,rP("pelted the Noble Lord either to abandon that and which lid was duty-(Hear, hear)-or to involve himself in all the difficulties which had occurred to him by affirming boldly, and as he (Sir F. Thesi g er) thou g ht j ustl y , that the measure' should extend to Ireland.-(Hear, hear.) And, w as the law with respect to the introduction of nbuowlls, how up to the year 1 829, and a f t e r that p eriod ? We had in their perfect integr it y certain Acts of Parliament to pre vent the introduction of of bulls into m t , h e is al c le or t t n ry e - s o t n a e tu b t e e in o g f as early as t Proernunirc, and the t o passed, frequently referred • o s f da th pt o e s d e but those statutes remained, and of any spuaffipcailebnutllylsporrotdeocetnenad documents kingdom from the intrusion ewersse, r a n n o 3 t , royal placets and exequaturs w hich, of a similar character, and render rendering The p c to the situation of a Protesta nt kin g dom ; but, after the year 1829, we began a system which he was almost afraid to call one of inconsiderate kindness and indulgence.-(Hear, hear.) We one by one removed from our statute-book the different securities that had existed aga inst Papal encroachment. - (Hear.) We broke down the bat tlements of our forts-we , dismantled our citadel, a nd we afforded a free o pp ortunity to any person disp ose d to ta k e advantage of our disabled con dition to march in and take possession.-(Hear. ) The Noble Lord, even under the disabled circumstances in which he was placed, never apprehended any such encr o a chment as this that had taken place, and the words of the Noble Lord were rather remarkable. In August, 1846, he said :- " Let us suppose that there is some bull introduced into this country similar to those we have heard of in former days. Let us suppose, though it is almost extravagant to suppose it, that there was any attempt of the Pope to assert any sovereign authority in these realms, or to interfere with the Queen's autherity, st y belief is that no such bull would be o b s erved by any Roman Cath o li c , b ut t h a t it would be a dead l e tter ;and thus much I nut sure of, that if any person acted contrary to his allegiance in consequence of such a bull, he would be punishable according to the laws of this country." -(Hear.) Now, a beef, which was equivalent to a bull, had been introduced. The Noble Lord himself had characte rised that document, and it might be as well to put the Noble Lord's celebrated letter in juxtaposition with that cele brated passage from his speech in the year 1846, to see how c ompletely he was deceived and misled by a blind confidence in the forbearing intention of the Papal See-(Hear, hear), -and how little the Noble Lord was prepared for this attempt. The Noble Lord said in Lis letter :- "There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Rome-a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided swa y which is inconsistent w ith the Queen's supremacy, with th e rights of our bis ho p s and cler gy , and with the spiritual tnieindependencei of the nation, as asserted even in R oman Catho lic Well, this brief unexpectedly, and to the astonishment of the Noble Lord, made its appearance on our shores. There was a strong popglar ferment throughout the country. Th e Noble Lord saw the rising storm; he watched its progress, and at last, after some little deliberation, he turned his face in the direction to Which the popular gale was blow ing, and issued the letter from which he had just read the passage. Now, the Noble Lord in that letter stated that the law would be very carefully examined, in order that it might be brought into operation against any person who had offended it. The people exulted in such a champion of their rights and their clearest interests-in such a defender of their faith as the Noble Lord, and they reposed in perfect security on the promises of the Noble Lord.-(Hear.) The law, it was admitted, was sufficient for the purpose of punishing this aggression-that had been admitted in this debate by the Noble Lord and other Hon. Members. Why, then, was not the law carried into effect ?-(llear, hear.) The Noble Lord said it was considered not to be expedient to carry out the law, because it had in a degree become obsolete, and might be regarded as rather a harsh proceeding if old Acts of Parliament, that had been buried a long time, and were almost dead letters in our statute book, were to be revived for the purpose of carrying them into operation in conse quence of what had occurred. He should have thought, then, that inasmuch as those Acts of Parliament, particu larly the Act of Elizabeth, had been under consideration in 1814 and 1845, they would haye given them a modern dress, LONDON, and made them speak modern language--(Hear)—and that the Noble Lo .d would have consilered those laws were not precisely obsolete, and might have been applied to this aggression. But what had the Noble Lord done? He had left the law in precise'y the same unsettled and unsatisfac tory state.—(Hear.) Were those Acts to be applicable to any future aggression, or were they to be considered obsolete? The Noble Lord had really done more injury to the law as rt existed in the statute-book, and also to the common,law, by the mode in which he had dealt with this subject, than by any other course that could possibly be conceived.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then considered it was not proper to carry out those laws against this aggression. Now, let the House see what was the nature of that aggression, and hav ing ascertained that, let them see what was the measures of the Noble Lord to protect us from that aggression, and to satisfy the wishes and desires of the people.—(Hear, hear.) Every one who had spoken on the l'rotestant side of the question had admitted the haughty and imperious tone of the Papal bull. It had been proved, he thought, most sa tisfactorily, that the Papal power being a compound of tem poral and spiritual authority, so closely connected and inti mately blended, that it was almost impossible to detach and separate the one from the other—whether this was to be regarded as a spiritual or a temporal act, or an ecclesiastical act, which was an act of a mixed nature, there could be no doubt that the tone indicated at least the intention to extend sovereign power and authority over the kingdom of England ; and that very expression, " kingdom of England," appeared to him to be very significant as regarded this Papal aggression. An observation was made, he believed by the Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury, that throughout this brief the Pope condescended only to speak of the kingdom of England, and when he spoke of the Church in England he spoke of the Church of England. Now as to the title of" the kingdom of England," was it used by mis take or design ? They could hardly think it was by mistake, because the Pope and his advisers could not be ignorant that in the year 1706 the kingdom of England ceased to exist as a separate kingdom—that it was united with Scot land, and became the kingdom of Great Britain. Then was it by design ? He could not help thinking so, inasmuch as in one of the shameful periods of our history the kingdom of England became a feudal dependency of the Pope, and he be lieved it was an inflexible rule of the Papal see, that what ever was once annexed to the patrimony of St. Peter could never be separated from it.—(Hear, hear.) He was dis posed, therefore, to think that the Pope had used that style and title to designate the kingdom to which his Papal bull applied, and it was, in his (Sir F. Thesiger's) mind signifi cant of the purpose. But then it was said by the Hon. and Learned Member for Plymouth in his admirable speech, that this proceeding on the part of the Pope was only the natural essissieetioal dwelopmeut of the Roman Catholic cnurch, and his Hon. and Learned Friend said, that inas much as we had once tolerated that Church, we should be inconsistent with ourselves unless we allowed that Church to expand, and grow, and develop, itself to its fullest complete ness and extent. Now, what was the natural development of the Roman Catholic Church ? Nothing short of universal dominion.—(Hear, hear.) And, lest it should be supposed that Protestants were excluded from that universal rule which the Roman Catholic Church arrogated for itself, he had found very recently a passage he would read to the House from a book which was a divinity class book at the College of Maynooth in the present day, and in which that princi ple was stated in the fullest manner : " Ecclesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes apostatoa, hereticos, et schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jam pertineant. ,, That was merely as to schismatics, heretics, and apostates. But there was another passage : " Societas Protestantium sese a schismatis reatu excusare non potest." It was perfectly evident, therefore, from comparing th e two passages, that universal rule being claimed over an schis matics, and Protestants being included in that category, the rule applied to them. See, then, the condition in which we should be if the argument of his Honourable and Learned Friend were correct.—( Hear, hear.) We could not ad mit the principle of toleration in the smallest degree with out admitting the right of the Roman Catholic Church to expand itself to the fullest extent of that claimed authority; and unless we could say to the Roman Catho lics, "We will admit toleration to a certain extent ; we will grant all that is necessary for the exercise of your reli gion ; so far shalt thou go and no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed"—unless we could say that, we must be open to all the terrible consequences that might ensue.— (Hear, hear.) Well, then, what was the result he should draw from his Honourableand Learned Friend's argument? He was afraid it was one which he hoped they never would come to, that the toleration of the Roman Catholic religion was entirely out of the question.—(Hear, hear.) Then it was said, why was there all this fuss ?—it was the most harmless change that could possibly be imagined—it was a mere change of vicars-apostolic to a hierarchy of bishops. If the change was so harmless what meant the note of triumph raised by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral ? What meant the fervid glow of fi ' gurative language with which be described that change? He said " Your beloved country has received a place among the fair Churches which, normally constituted, form the splendid aggregate of the Catholic communion. Catholic England has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long vanished, and begins now anew its course of regularly adjusted action round the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of vigour." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, he would rather take the view of the Cardinal upon this point, and, to his mind, those were words of ominous import. (Hear, hear.) Then, it was said they ought not to be dismayed on this occasion, because the Pope had given up a portion of the authority he previously possessed ; that vicars-apostolic were creatures of his will, and that, when he had established his hierarchy, they would be entirely independent of him. If the Pope had given up any portion, of his power, it was a little con trary to the usual action of the Papal see—(Hear, hear) — and he should rather think it right on that principle to use the phrase of our neighbours—" reculer pour inieux sauter." But this hierarchy was to be the means of introducing, not the canon law as it had been recognised by our common law for a long series of years, but the canon law of the Church —the vital principle of which was, as he believed, an ultimate appeal to the Pope.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Again, they would have bishops dependent on the Propaganda at Rome. He could not help thinking, there fore, that there was a mere semblance of resignation of any portion of the Papal power by the Pope, and that after this hierarchy should be established, as he trusted it never would be—(Hear, hear)—the Pope would be more powerful than ever. - (Hear, hear.) But suppose the Pope should have given up a portion of his power, what consolation was that to us? We were just in the same situation, and had still to guard against encroachment, whether it was the encroach ment of the Pope, or of the Church of which he was the head.— (Hear, hear.) That being the condition in which we stood, what was it that the Noble Lord proposed as an important measure to avert all those con sequences? The Noble Lord, as it appeared to him, had given the character of his own Bill. The Noble Lord said, in the year 1846, that "as to preventing persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more ab surd and puerile than to keep up such distinctions." Well, he turned to the Noble Lord's Bill, and he found that it proposed to prevent the assumption of particular ecclesias tical titles, so that, to adopt the Noble Lord's own expression, he had given to the desires of the public, a Bill which was absurd and puerile."—(Hear.) Now, he begged the House to consider that if, as the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had told them, the Duke of Wellington in 1829 considered the 24th section of the 10th of George IV. as no security whatever—if this was the case at a time when all the Acts of Parliament for the protection of Protestantism were in full vigour, and were armed with all the penalties, how could we expect, now that all those Acts were oeprived of their force, that any such Act as the present could be of the smallest use? The Noble Lord must be perfectly aware that it would be perfectly fu tile for preventing the Acts which it proposed to provide against. He had heard that the late Mr. O'Connell was in the habit of saying that he could drive a coach and six through most modern Acts of Parliament. He (Sir F. Thesiger) was perfectly satisfied that a cardinal's state car riage, he was going to say, could be driven through this Bill, but the fact was, it was too small to render that pos sible, though he was quite sure it could easily be driven ewer it. (Hear, hear, and: a laugh.) Because, what did the Noble Lord propose? He proposed to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Now he would just put this case. Suppose Dr. Cullen addressed Dr. Wiseman and called him " Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster," but took care to sign himself. 'Paul Cullen," and suppose Dr. Wiseman returned an answer, and addressed Dr. Cullen as "Archbishop of Armagh," but took care to sign himself " Nicholas Wiseman," nisi would be no infringement of the law, because, in this transaction, there would be no assump tion of titles on the part of either party. The Bill of the Noble Lord was, therefore, so weak and so flimsy that it re • quired only the feeblest casuistry to break through it.— (Cheers.) His Hon. and Learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General had both stated that the Bill would prevent synodical action, and, of course, they would not have brought in a Bill to do so if they had not had that intention. Now he had some doubt whether the first clause would have that effect. lie would bring the Government, there fore, to this test :—To prevent any doubt on the point would the Government introduce a clause specifically pre venting synodical action ?—( Cheers.) And here he came again to the extraordinary course which was pursued by the Goverdment with respect to this Bill. The House must as sume that it was only after the most careful and guarded de liberation that the clauses were framed which were intended to have so extensive an operation ' • and yet the Right lion. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been compelled to say that not only did the Bill not ex press in terms what the Government meant, but that it actually expressed what they had never meant—(Hear, hear) for the Right non. Gentleman said they had disco vered that if the second section of the Bill was allowed to continue they would operate to prevent measures of ordina tion and other documents of that description from having legal validity, the consequences of which would be very serious ; and also, that if the third section was retained it would prevent bequests and endowments being left to Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops. Now, he (Sir Frederick Thesiger) was disposed to think that the legal opinion which had been read to the House by the Hon. Member for Dundalk, to the effect that the opera tion of the second clause was involved in the first—because, inasmuch as the first clause prohibited the assumption of titles, and made the assumption of them subject to a penalty —that, as a penalty always implied a prohibition, and a pro hibited act was always void in law, therefore any act done by Roman Catholic bishops under a prohibited title would be an act utterly and entirely void.—(Bear, hear.) With regard to the third section, he was disposed to think that under the Bequests Act there might be this distinction—that eupposing a bequest made to trustees and their successors in such terms that there would be a sufficient designation of persons independently of the prohibited titles, the bequest would be considered good in spite of the prohibited titles.— (H e ar, hear.) But, however this might be, he felt certain that the Noble Lord, with respect to the died of the second clause being involved in the first, was placed in this extraor dinary dilemma, that he must either vote against the third reading of his own Bill, or allow the Bill to be passed which contained provisions which he did not intend. Now he did notowbliethLord see how it was possible for the Noble Lord to escape from t t h h e e re far av et as cla o u n s e e a w n ay e . xe l e ' p h t e ie N n might intro f any authority, the s c,,nsequence of was the legal exercise o re spect to the assumption of titles in all cases in which there which would this dilemmdau.ceYinest,e the entire Bill, because the clause be, that the exception would be so enormously large as to swallow up would then only apply to the innocent assumption of titles by Roman Catholics when they i went i in ea to r s a oc n i ci ety a an l d ere announced by their titles.—( €t futile, aug intended to pursue? He anticipated that was the course he his statement would be received with a laugh of ridicule Seeina then, that he considered the utterly what when he said that he meant to vote for the second reading.— (Laughter.) And why? Because he thought that legisla tion was absolutely necessary, by the he preferred the minimum o f legislation proposed a nd because, bad as it was, Noble Lord to having no legislation at all.—(Bear, hear.) But he meant to vote for the second reading for a still more important object—because it afforded an opportunity to these who thought, like him, that the B ill was not what it ought to be, to endeavour to amend it in Committee. —(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend the Mem ber for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) had slightly sketphed out Lis notion of vshat the Bill ought to have been; and he WEDNESDAY - EVENING, agreed with his Hon. and Learned Friend that, if the Noble Lord were sincere in the view he had taken of the Papal ag gression, he ought to have come forward with a Bill denoun cing it in explicit terms as a thing opposed to the sovereignty of the Queen, and to have introduced a clause prohibiting all persons from acting under the Papal brief, or under any similar document, under a penalty. This, he conceived —if there was to be any correspondence between the language of the Noble Lord and his acts—between his promises and his performances—was the sort of measure which the Noble Lord should have proposed. He ventured to think that the public would be satisfied with nothing else.—(Cheers.) He was perfectly satisfied that if they proceeded in a vacillating, hesitating, and temporizing course they would entirely fail ; that if they touched " the nettle danger" timidly, they would only be stung the more ; but that if they grasped it boldly it would be perfectly harmless.—(Cheers.) Ile felt that this was the first of a series of formidable encroachments. He believed that if they did not take their stand in every breach they would entail a fearful struggle upon their pos terity. He was too sensible of the advantages which we had derived from the light and liberty of the Reformation which had been won for them by the labour, the danger, and the blood of their ancestors, not to endeavour, as far as he could, to transmit them unimpaired to the latest genera tion. (Cheers.) Sir J. GRAHAM explained that on comparing the report of the Duke of Wellington's speech of 1829, which he had quoted from Hansard the other evening, With the report in the Mirror of Parliament, he found that the date of 1792, therein referred to, was a misprint for 1782, and that the Duke's words were, according to the Mirror of Parliament, that an Act having been passed in 1793, which was under stood to repeal the Act of 1782, the consequence had been that the practice of assuming titles had greatly increased. The Right Hon. Baronet added, that the Act of 1782 was intended for the relief generally of the Roman Catholics, but a proviso was added to the eighth clause (which he read) to the effect that the benefits of it would not be extended to any Popish ecclesiastic who should as sume any ecclesiastical ranker title whatever. Mr. GLADSTONE said he had listened, as indeed he was satisfied the House had listened, with that admiration which he had never failed to experience to the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend. The views of •his Hen. and Learned Friend were, however, unmistakeable. They should feel obliged for their disclosure, but he thought it was well that the House, which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had in vited to enter on a new path, which no Ilan among them might see the end of, should at least consider the direction in which it tended. The course which the Noble and Learned Gentleman too plainly indicated, was a destruction of the principles of religious freedom in their application to Roman Catholic subjects. His Hon. and Darned Friend had distinctly adverted to the necessity of introducing clauses into the Bill for preventing synodal action; but he believed that no gentleman would stand up in that House atd say that voting for such a clause he was a friend for religious freedom to the Roman Catholics. His own plea for address ing the House at that period of the debate was, that he was the only Member repreaentine,an English university, and a large portion of the highest clergy, who had not yet spoken, and he had the misfortune to stand in opposition to the sentiments and judgment of all his colleagues.—(Hear, hear.) He should pass by many matters alluded to in the debate, and come at once to the considerition of that which struck him as being most important and forcible. He did not pretend to make light of the dangers to which the Church of England was exposed. He differed from the Hon. Mem ber who expressed an apprehension, in which he (Mr. Glad stone) by no means shared, for the freed= of the Queen. — (Hear.) Now he had no apprehension for the freedom of the Queen. Looking at their respective anstitutions, and at taching full importance to the blessings of free education, he believed that the constitution of England was strong enough to resist any aggression which might be perpetrated, or meditated, or intended by any power, temporal or spi ritual. He entered his protest against all attempts to meet spiritual dangers of the Church by temporal legislation. The principle they had now to deal withwas plain.—(Hear.) If the Roman Church by its authorities, whether the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, or anybody doe, continued such an interference with temporal affairs ,aa would not be per mitted in the case of another religious body, then he said they were not only entitled, but they were bound to inter fere.— (Hear.) But until the exercise of that interference until they overstepped that line which 'was drawn, not for them only, but for all men, between 'titters spiritual and temporal—until that was done, they had no right to inter fere. They had no right to deny to them that which they gave to any other body.—( Hear, hear.) He would briefly advert to that which had been well said the other night by his Right Honourable Friend the „Member for Ripon in regard to the language used both in the brief of the Pope, and in the letter of Cardinal Wiseman, with respect to these ecclesiastical appoietments. He confessed that that language had not only been impertinent, but of a vaunting and a boastful character . (Cheers.) He would not say that it had been adopted with any intention of wounding the feelings of the people of England, but it was certainly language of which complaint might most justly be made, and couched too, in strong terms.—(lronical cheers, and counter cheering.) It was not enough that the language of those documents should be offensive to justify their interference; but the act itself should warrant it, and therefore the question of the wisdom of this legislation must stand or fall by the substance of the art itself. He did not stop to inquire whether the Pope had done all that might have been expected from him. In point of principle, and in point of prudence he could conceive that there were other steps that it would have been wise for him to have taken. He did not consider, either, whether there had been a breach of the law of nations ; but if that law had been broken, in his opinion nothing could be more disparaging than for the Go vernment to propose, and for that House to entertain a mea sure proceeding in respect of that breach of the law of nations by imposing penalties. And that letter to the Bishop of Dur ham was a letter, certainly, which the Noble Lord never would have demeaned himself to write.—(Cheers and inter ruption.) Perhaps he was in fault. He did not mean to say that the Noble Lord had done himself any dishonour by that letter— (Ironical cheers)—but that he would have demeaned himself if, when he wrote it, if he thought there had been a breach of the law of nations. (Cheers.) It was certainly a matter of regret that the Noble Lord should have made his complaint, not in the regular way, but by a letter to the Bishop of Durham.—(Cheers and laughter.) Admitting that in the abstract there might be a wrong, which he could not exactly define, he must say that no ground whatever had been made out by Government to prove that our Crown had been wronged, and that the independence of the nation had been violated. What he contended for was, that they should have proceeded by diplomatic agency..--(Hear, hear.) But what was the answer of the Government to that? Only this, that a clause was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill, which prevented the Pope from sending his agent to this country. But was that a reason why they should not send an envoy to the Pope, to complain that he had invaded our national independence, and insulted the powers of the Crown? — (Cries of .‘Hear, hear.") For was there a man who would say that the Pope would have been bold enough to turn back an envoy bringing -a well-founded complaint of that nature? That, however, was a matter affecting the conduct of the Government. They had now this Bill before them, and the ques tion was, what had they to do, with it? And however wrong, or however right, the Government might be, they must now make up their minds to the questioa whether this Bill should or should not be read a second time.—(Hear, hear.) His Learned Friend who had just sat down was eager in denouncing the act of the Pope, and in calling for redress; but he had not heard a man who had shown by reasoning that this was a Bill adequate to the purposes in vie vv.— (Cheers.) No one had abused the measure more than they who had made the most ingenious speeches in its favour. For example, what did the Rigbt Hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General say? That we had a law to prevent the introduction of bulls, in which respect an act of illegality had been committed by the Pope's agents; but that there was no law to prevent the parcelling out of the kingdom into dioceses, and ks a matter of course, the assumption of territorial titles from those dioceses. Therefore an act of ille gality had been committed, in respect of which no step was taken, and another act which was not illegal, but was inno cent, they proposed to legislatefor by a penal Bill. Thus they left the illegal act unscathed, while the legal act of the creation of dioceses, and the usurpation of titles, they were going to make illegal by an ex post facto law.— (Cheers.) How much has been said about Ireland, but poor Scotland had scarcely been mentioned.—(Hear, hear.) And they: was not time, to go properly into the question of Scotland as affected by the provisions of this Bill. But when they reached the Committee, which he was bold enough to thick they might still be able to reach—(Cheers and laughter)— perhaps the subject of Scotland might come under discusson, and assuredly it would be a subject well worthy of unlade ration.— (Hear-) The Government exp ress ed their convic tion to be, that, in spite of all difficulties, it was theirlbso lute duty to adopt a system of equal legislation with regard to England and Ireland, because the great constitutional doctrine on which they raised their trivial and petty super structure, was susceptible of equa; application to the two people. Well, what said the Attorney-General? He (Mr. Gladstone) presumed that, in giving his opinion on the sub ject, he meant precisely what he said. But this was the doctrine in his mind—considering that this was in the mair. an extension to England of that section of the Catholic Emancipation Act, now only practically operative in Ireland. He said it was true, that in Ireland tat section had not, been called into activity, but that in England the case would be different. It was intended to put that machinery into opera tion, he said, and, in fact, that that should be tolerated in Ire land which was not endured :in England. He might state the views that were expressed in introducing this law; but if that law was to be a dead letter in Ireland, while in Eng land it was to be a liv in g principho, and a so u r ce of penal proceedings, what now became of their flourishes about the supremacy of the Queen, and the equality of law in one " country and in the other?—(Loud ries of 1168 r, hear," and cheers.) But what w as the Bill su pposed to be, and what one say what its precise effect ect of the Bill was supposed to b i in itself s e One l f ? p C r ioeuclidp al oh e y b w w o as ul i d t be the prevention of synodal action. 'He understood the Right Hon. and Learned Gentlemat the Attorney-General to say that it would not prevent synodal action. He un derstood the Solicitor-General as distinctly to say, in the last passage of ; his speech, that the 1111 with its one clause would prevent synodal action.—(Jheers and laughter.) But he would pass that by.—(Hear, near.) The SOLICITOR -GENE R AL exalained that he said that Roman Catholics themselves put it upon tjne ground that without territorial title there coulc be no synodal action. The Bill took away territorial title, aid upon the showing of the Roman Catholics themselves sytodal action fell to the ground. Mr. GLADSTONE--That was the clim ax o f th e H on , and Learned Gentleman's speech, to ihow the stringency of the Bill, in support of which view hewas obliged to take ad vantage of the state of things represaated by the Catholics themselves. But what was the effee of the omission of the second and third clauses? On thatpoint they had had the assistance of many lawyers there. 'bey were unfortunately laymen. " Unfortunately," did hi say ?_(Cheers, and laughter.) What assistance had thor had from the lawyers? The Attorney-General said that when the second and third clauses hail been expunged, the first clause would have the same effect. An Hon. and Learned Member, on the other hand, had produced the opinions of the most distinguished lawyers, that the second and third !lenses would stand in the way of the first.—(Cheers, and .aughter.) That was pretty well in the way of contradiction ; but it mended the matter much when his Hon. and Darned Friend, who had just sat down, came in with an authsrity and told them, as distinctly, that neither the rue was sight or the other ; but the second clause would be involved in the first, and that the third clause would not.—(Hear.) Bit this was a Bill in tended to maintain the rights of tht Queen and the inde pendence of the nation. Why was it to maintain the rights of the Queen's Crown? Who had of ended them? A foreign power. And what was their mod( of dealing with he foreign power? Why to impose certain penalties on her Majesty's subjects. Did that Bill as I stood give them any coherent idea of, or refer teem to au3 principle? He would have yielded it a comparative approbation if it had referred even to a false principle. But there was none such. It was a Bill to repress foreign authority ; then why did it not confine itself to Protestant foreign titles?—(Hear ) Why were certain domestic titles repressed by that Bill ? —(Hear.) That was not so remote a case. In the last session of Par liament, or thelast but one, a petition was presented to the House of Lords by Lord Brougham, and was supported by many Peers, in which many gentlemen denominated Eng lish Episcopalians residing in Scotland, prayed the House of Lords to give them episcopal goverment. Such a Dill, had MARCH it been introduced, would have been rendered nugatory by that of the Noble Lord. The Legislature exempted the Scottish Episcopalians from this restraint, and now the Noble Lord was practically imposing it. He could not accept the exemption with gratitude. He was acquainted with many excellent Scotch Episcopalians, but he had no desire that an exemption by civil privileges and toleration should be created for one class of men from which others precisely in the same circumstances were to be excluded.—(Cheers.) But did that Bill prohibit territorial titles ? They prohibited epis copal titles, but not territorial titles. There were others. who divided the country into districts besides Episcopalians, and Wesleyans divided it into circuits.—(Cheers and cries of " Oh, oh !") He knew the meaning of that cry, and would deal with it in its proper place. Only one thing at a time.— (Hear, hear.) He was saying that they did not prevent ter ritorial titles, because not only were the Wesleyans, but be cause in England and Ireland there were bodies called Presbyters and Synods, having just as much territorial titles as these bishops of the Pope.—(" No, no," and cheers.) There were in Scotland persons professing the same religion as the people of England, and in England persons professing the Presbyterian religion of Scotland. They divided the country into districts, assigning, in the first instance, epis copal titles to bishoprics, as, for example, the Bishop of Glasgow, while in England there was the Presbytery of London, strictly as binding as any in Scotland. If they made the distinction because in many countries in Europe bishoprics were connected with the temporal interests, the Presbytery was, on the same ground, open to the same ob jection. He tookl the Bill according to its professions. Its proposed object was to prevent Romish aggression. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs regards it as an extension of the Act of 1829. He protested against such a desecration of it. The clause of the Act of 1829 went to defend them against the usurpation of the ultra existing sees, well known in the House, and carrying with them many most important incidents.—( Hear, hear.) The person who should assume the title of the Bishop of London would be a pretender to a title endowed with great advantages and temporal rights. The question now arose whether they would allow a title to be assumed, which interfered with no one and invaded no rights, and represent it as an extension of the Act of 1829. It was for them to prove that the rescript of the Pope was of the temporal character they described it to be, but he had heard nothing which proved that to be the case. Of the parties who defended this Bill, or rather the opinion that there ought to be legislation on the subject—some said the Bill went too far, while others said it did not go far enough. These parties were involved in an inconsistency in defend ing this position, when they described what took place in foreign countries, where they said that the people were re duced to the lowest stage of degradation from the influence of the Reman Catholic religion, and at the same time alleged that they had no intention to prevent the fair progress of that religion. The argument went too far. If they had to contend with a spiritual system, they must meet the strength of a spiritual system with the strength of another spiritual system, and not by a penal enactment.— (Hear, hear.) It was argued by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that there was in this case the distinc tion that these titles were conferred by a foreign power. Well, he would inquire how far would this carry them ? When they had persons, subjects of this country, who ac knowledged this spiritual authority, how were they to in terfere with them ? He would not deny that there might be temporal matters under the guise of spiritual affai-s, but they could not say because they were derived from foreign authority that they ought to be deprived of them. They should show that they were not spiritual matters, but temporal, under the pretence of being spiritual. When they had arrived at that conclusion, then there would arise a reason for their interference. No one had as yet said that the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics should be restricted. The Attorney-General distinctly maintained that they were entitled to equal freedom. Then he asked the question whether this act was spiritual or temporal? Religious liberty required that Parliament should not step within the sphere of religion? He did not mean to say that it had not a right to interfere in the affairs of the Es tablished Church, which derived advantages and privileges from the State; bat the right was so limited with regard to religious bodies unendowed and unconnected with the State. What, he would ask, was the amount of the proof adduced that the rescript of the Pope was of a temporal character? The only case you test was that set forth by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, who stated that the appoint ment of bishops was not a spiritual but a temporal act. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had said that was the opinion of Mr. Twiss. Mr. GLADSTONE, in continuation, said he should like to know if the Noble Lord adopted that opinion.—(Langhter.) If the appointment then of bishops was a spiritual act, they had no right to interfere. If it was a temporal act, why did they exempt the bishops of the English Church in Scot land, and not place the nomination of those bishops in the Crown. He wished to see how the Government could extricate themselves from that dilemma. He called upon them either to strike out that exemption, or to place the nomination in the hands of the Crown. Th e Attorney- General spoke of excommunications, and the deprivation of benefices. If parties in these matters went beyond the sphere of spiritual matters, they would have a right to deal with it. He would ask, however, were the Roman Catholics the only parties who used excommuications ? They were .lommon in other religious communities. They were re torted to by the Dissenting bodies, and were used by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and in the Free Church. Arhat he wanted was not proofs of insulting language hay ng been used, or that the Roman Catholic religion was exclusive, but what he wanted was proof of the temporal &erecter of the rescript, and if that could not be furnished, here was not a shadow of reason for the principle laid town for this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Then there was the :anon law of which so much had been said. He would ake the canon law of Boniface the Eighth and Honorius he Ninth. The Attorney-General disclaimed the opinion *at this Bill would exclude synodal action. He would call Don Hon. Gentleman who were prepared to vote in favour o' this Bill because it would prevent synodal action, to re ollect when they went home that this Bill would not ex cude the canon law. However this law might increase the tower of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, that vas their affair - (Hear, hear)—and there would be no reli gious freedom if Parliament undertook to interfere, and re slate the internal disputes of religious bodies. Religious freedom consisted in the right of parties to frame a system kr themselves, from Mormonism upwards ; and if, when parties in these bodies found themselves rubbed and fretted, ;hey were to come to Parliament to set them right, their re igious freedom would be endangered.—(Cries of " Hear, lean") The Roman Catholics were free men, and would act for themselves.—(Hea-.)They did not want y our protection. They repudiated it. What they wanted was, that you should b; them alone.—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) He right ask, what had the Roman Catholics now ? They had that which was considered the very worst part of this canon tiw. That which gives too much power to the Pope, and then not infuse enough of the constitutional principle into the Church. The system was susceptible of the constitutional pinciple. In a hierarchy bishops had privileges as against tie authority of the Pope. The Pope would not deprive a docesan bishop without that, and an incumbent was in the slime position with regard to his bishop ; whereas at present tie Pope was, with regard to the Catholics of this country, complete master without any limit.—(Hear, hear.) Every nan was now subject to his arbitrary authority and unli mited power, presenting a power as completely arbitrary Es could exist.—(Hear, hear.) He could remove a bishop or priest at his will. This arbitrary power could lot be better expressed than in the words of the Canon of Boniface VIII. and Honorius IX., which the Hon. end Learned Gentleman referred to, and which declared— ' That it is necessary for salvation to believe that everybody is bound to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Vherever bishops were introduced, it must tend alike to final rights and to equal organisation, and give a certain cegree of freedom even as against the Pope.—(Hear.) He confessed it wounded him, as a member of the Church of England, to see this hierarchy spreading over the country, hit that was a totally different matter from invoking the secular arm —(Hear.) He might be wrong, but he supposed that if proper investigation were made, it would be found that the law was, that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be vested in the Crown. If that were so, no exception could be made in favour of particular sects. The Toleration Act might be an exception, but he apprehended that that would authorise the exercise of no such power, for instance, as that used by the Wesleyan Conference, when they deter mined upon the expulsion of Mr. Dunn and Mr. Griffiths. In 1725 Bishop Gibson wrote a letter to the Duke of New castle, then Secretary of State, representing that certain ministers of Massachusetts had intimated to the Governor of that colony their intention to meet in synod. The Duke of Newcastle referred the letter to Lord Hard wick, who was Attorney-General. The law officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that her Majesty's supremacy extended to the colonies, and that it was not lawful for the clergy to meet without the Royal licence. That showed that this power to prevent the meet ing of synods extended to all sects, and even to the colonies, and these law officers, to avoid even the appearance of ad mitting the legality of the proposed synod, suggested that, if the ministers assembled, they should be dispersed by force. No Act of Parliament had been passed since to the present day giving express legality to synods. If that were so, and if this doctrine was now to be applied to the Roman Catho lics, it must be applied to all other bodies, and not to them alone. They must not have a partial and exceptional appli cation. He agreed with the Noble Lord that of late the ex treme party in the Church of Rome had gained the ascen dancy. The moderate party had been declining. He agreed with the Noble Lord upon these facts, and joined with him in sentiments of deep regret at this state of things. They thought that in opposing the introduction of a hierarchy they Were endeavouring to repress Ultramontane principles. He would show them the very reverse was the fact. His assertion was that since the Reformation there had been two parties in the Roman Catholic Church, and their history was very different. Since the time of Queen Elizabeth the bulk of the clergy and laity had pursued one line of policy, and the Jesuits and the Court of Rome another. The former party, which might be called the moderate party, had ever been struggling for this measure of diocesan episcopacy. The extreme party in the Church of Rome, who were represented by the cardinals around the Pope and the Jesuits, had all along been struggling to resist this measure, and now he asked them to grapple with the facts he should give them. He would show them that since the time of Elizabeth the majority of the laity and clergy of the church of Rome had been straggling, and often with the countenance of the Government, to obtain diocesan episco pacy; and could anything be more gross than for the Go vernment now to interfere, and say we will introduce what will prevent you, the moderate party in the Church of Rome, from succeeding? Reference had been made to Mr. Palmer, and that theologian had twitted the. Catholic theologians in the discussion, by telling them, " You are no Church at all, because you have no diocesan bishops." When they wish now to have bishops, and become a regularly constituted Church, our own theologians and others seek to prevent it. The Roman Catholic laity and clergy had all along been struggling to obtain this measure with the sanction and countenance of the British Government, who had throughout opposed vicars apostolic, and encouraged the efforts to obtain diocesan episcopacy. This could be proved upon the autho rity of Mr. Dodd, and the well-known Mr. Butler, and the equally well-known Roman Catholic writer, Perrington. Directly the penal laws were repealed, the question of bishops was again sought to be raised, and efforts made to conciliate the mind of the British Government. The great mind of Pitt had a definite opinion upon this subject, and they should not be ashamed of marching under his banner. He was of an opposite opinion to the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) When he looked back to the prophetic sayings of that great man, he found in them lessons of wisdom, which would, if considered, help them to solve many of the difficult questions now pressing upon them. After referring to the opinions of Mr. Pitt on the subject of the Catholic disabilities, he stated that in 1790 it was deemed advisable by the Catholics to send Mr. Hussey al ii deputation to Rome, and one of the great objects Mr. Hussey had in view was to endeavour to pave the way for the appointment of bishops in ordinary, elected by the clergy—(Hear, hear) —and he advocated that appointment on two grounds ; first, that the Government ap. proved of the change, and second, that the Legislature would soon' require that change to be made. The same thing happened when Sir John Con Hippesley was at Rome —he endeavoured to facilitate the arrangement that vicars apostolic should be withdrawn, and that diocesan bishops should be appointed in their stead. It might be said that if the bishops were appointed by the clergy the case would be greatly altered. He (Mr. Gladstone) would wish that; and the appointment of diocesan bishops was a step to it, and to 26, 1851. a certain extent would detach them from Rome. They found, therefore, that the history of the case was this, that the moderate party in the Church was always asking for diocesan bishops, that the extreme party always supported the system of vicars-apostolic, and that the Government sided with the moderate party. It was his (Mr. Gladstone's opinion that the course Ministers were taking, so far from stopping the course of affairs, was calculated to do the very reverse—that it was throwing them back, and a move in the direction of penal laws. It was both a persecution and a nul lity. If they wished to exercise a beneficial influence on the Roman Catholics they must reverse their policy. They must deal with them kindly. They had feelings and affec tions they could turn to account, for they were distinguished by their attachment to their country, and their attachment to the Crows.—(Hear, hear.) If they drove them back on the Pope, what could they expect but alienated feelings, and the difficulties oa the other side of the Channel would be proportionately increased. In that country their difficulties had already commenced. When the colleges were opened last year, they had a party in the Catholic Church in favour of the colleges, and there was a division in that Church on the question. But there was no division now.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) The question with them now was, should they go backwards or forwards ?—(Hear, hear.) He con tended that there had been no temporal interference by the Pope in the late appointments, except such as were incidental to the office of bishop. Would they, then, go backwards, or forwards, in religious liberty ? Did they think so ill of their own religion as to fear the breath of free com petition?—(Hear, hear.) It was useless to urge that the present measure was but a trifling retrogression. Of course it was but a trifling retrogression; but all retrogressions were so at first. But what security had they that other and more formidable measures were not in the back ground— (Loud cries of " Hear, hear") —and that during the next half century the question of religious liberty would not again act upon Parliament, and be made the means of unseating Ministers P—( Hear, hear.) Do not tell him that the cha racter of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was a security. He once thought it was—(Hear, hear) —but if they prophe sied that the Noble Lord would not prohibit the action of synods, he feared they wall be in error. If in 1815 any one had told him that in the month of March, 1851, the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill to prohibit ecclesias tical titles on the part of Roman Catholic bishops, he (Mr. Gladstone) would not have believed it. He never heard a more impresssive passage than one which was delivered by the Noble Lord in his speech upon the second reading of the Bill for enlarging the endowment of the college of Maynooth, when the Noble Lord referred to some lines of Virgil— " Scilicet et tempus veniet, cum finibus illis Agricola. incurvo terram molitus aratro, Exesa inveniet sealant' rnbigine pile ; Aut gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit manes, Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris." The Noble Lord said, that upon the scenes where battles had been fought the hand of nature effaced the ruin which the hand of man had wrought; and the cultivator of the soil in aftertimes found the rusted arms, and looked upon them with joy as the memorials of forgotten strife, and as enhanc ing the blessings of his peaceful occupation ; but he added, in reference to the powerful opposition to that measure, that it seemed that our strifes upon the question of religious free dom never were at an end, and our arms never were to rust. —(Hear, hear.) Would any man who heard the Noble Lord deliver those impressive sentences have believed, not only that strife in regard to the great question of religious liberty was to be revived—revived, it was to be feared, with a great deal of acerbity—in this year 1851—(Hear, hear)—but that he himself was to be a main agent in the revival—( dear, hear) - that his was to be the head which was to wear the helmet, and his the hand which was to grasp the spear?-- (Hear, hear.) The principle of religious freedom—its adapta tion to their modern state and to their ancient institutions, was not adopted rashly. Were they going to spend the latter part of the century in undoing that which they had already done? It must be recollected that Europe, and the civilized world, looked to England at the present moment. They knew that nothing was so distasteful to England as obsolete theories, and that when she made a step forward, she kept it—that she was not a republic to-day, and a mo narchy to-morrow. If the people of England, then, at tempted to turn back the principle of civil and religious liberty it would recoil upon themselves.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had appealed to those on his (Mr. Glad stone's) side of the House in the names of Hampden and of Pym ; but he confessed he would rather have heard those names appealed to on any other subject—(Hear, hear) — because if there was one blot on their scutcheons, it was the odious intolerance which they practised against the Catholics. (Hear, hear.) He would rather prefer appealing to those great men who were mentioned by Hallam, to whom they owed the safety of this great monarchy, and whose disposi tion was to avert the severity of the laws and to attach to them their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Alluding to the party with which he was connected the Right Hon. ' Gentleman said, there was no great band of union which bound them together; but that they' felt they should, one day, have the force of public opinion.—(Cheers and laughter.) Re entreated the House to consider well the conclusion to which they were about to come on this important question, and trusted that their votes would be given in accordance with the sacred principles of justice, and that while they were sustained by a sense of justice, they would resolve to follow wherever it might lead. The Right Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud cheering, which continued for several minutes. Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I think I gave testimony last night, by voting against the adjournment of the debate, that I did not wish to intrude on the House in this debate. I hope, however, that as few of those with whom I usually act have addressed the House on this subject, trusting perhaps to my feeble expression of their views—that I may have the oppor tunity of expressing with extreme brevity our views of the general question which has been mooted, and particularly of the measure offered to our consideration. Sir, we have been informed by a Minister of the Crown that an aggression has been committed against the supremacy of the Sovereign and the honour of the nation. By the same means that this in formation was conveyed to us, we were informed that the aggression was committed by a prince of no great power. &flowing up that intimation, the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield has talked of that power as a poor feeble priest ; and more than one Hon. Gentleman has taken several op- portunities of reminding us that the present possessor of the Papal see was surrounded by French bayonets—a fact which has been reiterated as a reason for our countenancing the aggression which the Government has confessed has taken place. Now, Sir, I would remind the House that more than three centuries ago the Pope was not only supported—if I may use the expression—by French bayonets, but that Rome was taken and sacked by a French prince, and that the Pope of those days suffered indignities greater than Pius IX. has ever been subjected to. Yet, since that period, the greatest achievements of the Papal see have occurred ; and since that period, and notwithstanding the strong will of Henry VIII. •and the pure spirit of Edward VI., the Protestant Establish ment in England was subverted ; and it is only because the attempt of Phillip and Mary was not successful that lam not at this moment perhaps addressing a Popish Speaker and a Popish Parliament.—(Hear.) Now, Sir, whatever may be our opinions of this aggression, it is not true—it is not wise to despise the foe who committed it.— (Hear, hear.) 1 deny, Sir, that this prince is a prince of no great power. I say he is a prince of very great power—if not of the greatest. I will not dwell on those millions of his sub jects of whose existence we have been so often reminded by speakers on both sides, but I will remind the House that, in dependent of that circumstance the Pope has at his com mand, between the regular and secular clergy, an army of 1,000,000 of priests, governed by thousands of bishops and archbishops, and that he was the general and lieutenant general of this great host.—(Hear.) And is this, Sir, the power that we are told is to be treated in the same way as we treat the Wesleyan Conference.—(Cheers.) Is this a power to be associated with the last invention of Scotch ' Dissenters ?—(Hear, hear.) When I listened, Sir, to the ingenious reasonings with which this fallacy was supported, and to the fallacious analogies of the Right lion. Gentle man, I for a moment supposed th were only a display of dialectics to adorn the debate.—(Hear, hear.) But when I remember the high position of those who have indulged in them, I could not help suspecting that there was a concealed object, and that their comparisons were more pregnant with meaning than they seemed to be.— (Hear.) And, indeed, Sir, it has scarcely been concealed by the Right Hon. Gen tleman who has just sat down, for he says, "If you apply this doctrine to the Queen's supremacy, and to those adhering to the Roman Catholic communion, on what plea can you refuse to apply it to Wesleyans, or to Scotch Dis senters? " But, Sir, the converse of the proposition is equally true, and if that interpretation of religious liberty supported by the Right Honourable Gentleman and the Honourable and Learned Member for Plymouth is to be ac cepted and applied to the Church of Rome, on what plea can you refuse to apply the same principle of religious liberty not only to the Church of Rome, but to the Church of England?—(Cheers.) On what ground can you vindi cate a restriction of the principle which you support, so far as the Church of England is concerned? Is she not to have the command of her internal discipline and internal arrange ments? Why is she not to have a synod of action?— (Cheers.) Why is the Church of England alone to acknow ledge the supremacy of the Queen?—(Hear, hear.) Why, Sir, we see the trouble involved in the principle assumed.— (Hear, hear.) The only inference you can draw from the new philosophy of the Right honourable Gentleman and his friends is, that they are opposed to the alliance between Church and State.—(Loud cheers.) I believe the House of Commons are not yet prepared to support that prin ciple.—(Renewed cheers.) Sir, I cannot deal with this ag gression of the Pope on the abstract principles which have been introduced into the discussion. I must look to the cir cumstances which surround us. On one side it is acknow ledged that there has been a great revival of Romanism in Europe. No one denies that. But, on the other hand, it is said that there has been a great revival of Protestantism in England. What will be the issue of the struggle which the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon seemed to think inevitable in Europe, I will not take upon me to say. The circumstances are so complicated and the catastrophe so awful, that we shrink from attempting to form an opinion of so terrible a contin gency. What may be the issue in our own country is unfor tunately a subject on which every man is much mo le quali fied to form a judgment. I confess the possible result is one which makes me shudder, and I think Governm ent would only be doing its duty, if j a contest between R.om.anism end Protestantism was inevitable in this country, if it pr . opose measures and advised a line of conduct to prevent nu 'w n pchie s f e and to counteract such evils.—(Hesi.) .t c w a i n g e u n ir d, ome for such whether the measure proposed 'ls ad e qu ate and whether, if the circumstances detailed be authentic, it is calculated ' to prevent the mischief con templated. I re member I ventured, on the introduction of the measure, to say that it was not equal to the proems of the Noble Lord—that it asserted no _principle and vin dicated no right. Aft er the lapse of some few hours we bad another version of which the measure by the chief law officer of the Crown , gave it a m i character. The Attorney-General informed us that the measure would not only deal with titles illegitimately ' assumed, but with bequests and endowments to persons assuming these titles; and he reminded us, in a tone of self -complacency, that synodical action would be dealt with. What, then, was the Act? The whole projects of the Attorney-General was suddenly withdrawn, and we were told that we were only to discuss a Bill containin g on e clause, and when the Secretary of State m a d e t hi s announcement on the part of Ministers, he scarcely con cealed their opinion that it would be inoperative in Ire land and might be evaded in England ; but that it was necessary to pass it as a demonstrati,n an d as a protest.— (Hear, hear.) I ask, Sir, what could be a better vin dication of the course proposed by Lord Stanley than this proceeding of the Ministry? (H ear , h ear .) If the best course was to protest i n t h e face of Europe, would not a resolution of the two Houses have been of more avail, not only for that purpose, but also to sustain the spirit of England, than the project of a law, which in the course of six weeks has undergone countless transformations, and which has been announced by its proj ec t o rs as ineffective , and the effect of which i s even, perhaps, more than doubtful ? I want to place before the House the reasons for my disap proval of the measure. My first objection is, that by im plication it confesses that the conduct of Cardinal Wiseman, of which you complain, was not illegal. It must have been either one or the other. If it were legal, it was not an offence—if it were illegal, why then did you not deal with it by the law ? But he was told that the law was obsolete. The circumstances, Sir, in the present case were fres) fl igrant. The law whi c h cou ld h ave dealt with it wi (.....,, (_..."., 7,,-...--....' ,; obsolete, but ancient.—(Hear, hear.) And it is taifo l u t against the liberties of England to contend that all ancie - laws are obsolete, because our liberties depended upon Buell. —(Hear, hear, and cheers.) The second reason for my objection to this Bill is, that it attempts to legislate upon phrases and not facts. It attempts to legislate upon tithes. Now this is clear, that if you press the law, no person who could be subjected to it will ever place himself in a position as an offender under it. Yet he will not the less use the titles and those incidents which are conse quent upon his office. The whole thing is founded on a fallacy. If you choose to legislate on titles, you should not legislate against the assumption of titles by the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, but against those titles of honour and dignity which have been conferred upon them by her Majesty's Ministers.—(Cheers.) What a mockery it is when the Ministers are caressing and lauding these bishops, to be proposing penal statutes, because those bishops are treated with respect and honour by one class of her Majety's subjects.— (Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had told them that these bishops were so addressed by the Government .on the ground of social courtesy. Nothing was more inane than to legis late against those titles assumed by the Roman Catholic bishops, and not against those titles of honour conferred on them by the Government.—(Cheers.) I repeat that the Bill asserted no principle. That cannot be questioned. It would be assuredly a principle if it laid this down, that no person should accept place or dignity, employment or office, civil or ecclesiastical, from any foreign prince, except with the consent of her Majesty. That might be a national enactment and have taken the form of a statesman like precaution, instead of the present measure which had only the appearance of a spiteful act of the Government of this country against Popery. It may be said that the con sent of the Crown would be equivalent to a veto. That I deny. I will not now stop to argue upon the propriety or otherwise of the veto; but I deny that such a measure as I suggested would amount to a veto. The Roman Catholic bishop, as a matter of course, receives his appointment upon doing that which every gentleman elected in the constitu tional way to represent a constituency in this house is bound to do— namely, to take the oaths that are proposed to him upon his appointment to such an office. I feel the utter impossibility at this hour of the night to enter fully into this discussion. I feel also that I have great difficulties to contend against in attempting to criticise the measure before us. The relations that subsist between me and the Noble Lord are not those which are favourable to a candid criticism.— (Hear.) If the Noble Lord were my Noble Friend—(Loud cheers)—if there subsisted between us relations of friendship—even of affection—(Cheers and laugh.. ter)—l would avail myself of the proud privilege of such mu tual sensibility, and rest assured I would take care neither to spare his policy or his feelings.— (Renewed laughter.) And this reminds me that while attempting to prove that this mea sure is inefficient, although I shall vote for the second reading of it upon the same grounds as were stated by my Hon and L3amed Friend near me (Sir F. Theaiger), though not in any way pledging myself ultimately to support the Bill— though I think it will be evaded in England and inoperative in Ireland —yet that it had been supported and opposed by authorities of the greatest importance and commented upon in language of a most varied character. I heard it stated by one party that this Bill would be opposed because it was a reversial of our policy. Sir, I have heard these phrases before.—(Cheers.) I remember, about two years ago, making a very moderate proposition to mitigate the burden of taxation upon a suffering class of her Majesty's subjects, and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) then my opponent, as he is now the opponent of the Government, did oppose the proposition, because he said it was the reversal of our policy.—(Hear, hear.) But on that occasion the pretext appeared to be so monstrous that it was not swallowed by the Right Hon Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr:Gladstone). But on the present occasion," the reversal of our policy" is likely to bear some serious consequences. These consequences, we are told by the Right Hon. the Member for Ripon, are to be inevitable and immediate if this Bill passes into a law—namely, a civil war in Ireland. Now I heard that announcement with some misapprehension, but with more surprise.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gen tleman reminded us of the state of Ireland in 1829, and he said that we escaped civil war then by yielding to her de mands, but you will not escape it even if you persist in this measure. He made an analogy between the state of Ireland in 1829 and 1851, and according to him that analogy was complete. I ask him now whether that analogy was just, and whether it was complete and proved? If so, what, then, is the result of all those great measures we have passed for the amelioration of Ireland during the last twenty years?... (Hear, hear.) If the state of Ireland be in the same posi tion now as it was in 1829. What, I sa_y, was the use of giving complete political equality to the Roman Catholics in Ireland; of reconstructing the Church Establishment there; of abolishing tithes, and of establishing the great system of national education founded by Lord Stanley ?—(Hear, hear.) What, I say then, was the use of granting them municipal reform, by which the corporation was opened to all creeds, and upon the lowest franchise, not withstanding the ( pposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself?—(Cheers.) What was the use of the hew colleges— of giving to the Roman Catholics a university munificently endowed? What was the use of your doing for Ireland that which you had not done for England, namely, of having revised and increased the franchise in Ireland; if it be true that Ireland in 1851 is in the same state it was in 1829, namely, on the verge of rebellion ?—(Cheers.) Sir, I have too much faith not only in the loyalty, but the common sense of the Irish people, to believe that this is the case.— (Hear.) If that were true which had fallen from the lips of the Right non. Baronet the Member for Ripon, why, I ask, are those the lips through which such an intimation is circulated?-- (Cheers.) I make these observations because the Right Hon. Gentleman is no inconsiderable person. He is one of " the foremost men of all this world," and according to the not very delicate intimation of his friends, he is even likely soon to occupy a still more responsible situation than he at present fills.— (Hear, hear.) He wears the white robe, and stands in the forum a candidate for the consulate.— (Cheers.) It will be well for the people to pause over the observations he has made, for they have been both strange and singular in the course of this session. —(Hear, hear.) I proposed one day a revision of the taxation in respect to the suffering farmer, and the Right Hon. Baronet threatens me with a mutiny in the army.—(Cheers.) Some elections took place not exactly favourable to the views he enunci ated, and he threatens us with Parliamentary reform.— (Laughter.) A measure is brought forward to resist what is styled a foreign aggression, hostile to the honour of the na tion and the supremacy of the Sovereign, and he says that there will be a rebellion in Ireland.—(Renewed laughter.) Now, I hear in the course of eight weeks three remarkable assertions, which are well worthy the consideration of those who are uncertain in mind and are likely to alarm those who are peaceably disposed. Let us consider, then, whether the Right Hon. Gentleman is likely to become the pilot that will weather the storm. There was one great measure brought forward for Ireland in the course of the last twenty years, which was not successful, and that was the only one that was proposed by the Minister which did not succeed. It was one that would:have despoiled the Protestant Establishment of part of its revenues in order to partially endow the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. That measure was brought forward by the Noble Lord, but it was defeated by the oppo sition of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. This shows how little acquainted, after all, we are with all that takes place about us, and how difficult it is for us to form an accurate conception of contemporary events, even of those in which we ourselves have mingled, when it is reserved for this debate for the House of Commons and the country to be informed what the motives were which induced the Right Hon. Gentleman to take the course which he then pursued, It appeared that the opposition given to the appropriation clause upon his part was solely influenced by an abstract ob jection to endowments.—(Hear, hear.) I wonder if that was the motive which animated Lord Stanley, who was then the companion of the Right Hon. Baronet, for they both stood together on their chivalry. But it is certain that neither this House nor the country was in the secret, or did really believe that the opposition of the Right Hon. Baronet to the appropriation clause was founded upon an abstract objection to endowments. If I had heard it from any other person I should imagine this objection to come from a titular arch bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, from the cardinal, or the general of the Jesuits. Was it for this that the Cabinet of Lord Grey was subverted? Was it for this that the Right Honourable Gentleman had enlisted himself under that Con servative banner which he has so faithfully served?— (Ironical cheers.) Sir, I don't believe there is the slightest chance or fear of civil war in Ireland. 1 agree with the Right Honourable Member for the Uni versity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) that the principle of civil liberty is too deeply impressed on the minds of the people of this age that they could be stimulated to the commission of any such unhappy outrages. It is utterly impossible that Ireland could be governed on the principles of the Protes tant ascendancy ; but equally certain is it that no Govern ment can exist that is not faithfully devoted to the Protes tant Constitution of this country.—( Great cheering.) In its maintenance are involved greater interests than the fate of a Government—namely, the fate of the crown and the elestiny of the empire; and, trust me, not the least important interest involved In it is that of the civil and religious liberties sf the Roman Catholics themselves.—(Cheers.) Sir G. GREY said it was impossible not to be struck with the fact, that amongst the most able of the opponents to this Bill—men of great talent, ingenuity, and sophistry—in pointing out objections to the course the Government were pursuing, and in detailing their difficulties and embarreese ments, there was a remarkabl e absence of any ens fixed or definite principle upon which their objections to the Go.. Roman Catholi c House, f o r whom he entertained th e Members of that ment measure rested. It w as asserted by the Ro most sincere respect, 'that the Bill embodied the principle of persecution, and was opposed to religious for f ree d o m. He challenge d an y one to ad duce the proofs in support of such. an assertion. li e eed with the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) in the p r i nc i p l e which he had laid deign as the only one that should guide us in dealing with it—namely, that it should be framed upon the ground of imperial policy. So far as the spiritual pro gress of the Roman Catholic faith and spiritual means were c oncerned, we should be departing from th e principles which guided as if we in any degree fetter e d b y l aw the friends would have a clear right to compain' that religion ; and he admitted that h is Roftan w p we ro hv gr iicoh e l ss at i de f Catholic o th ur ose fe p il r o i w ne - i s p u l b es jec of ts eq t u h a e lit p y min a e n e d xt f e r n e te d oofm , freed ol o di ff m d net allow claimeed for ourselves. (a —n this subject he could only say he did not regret the a c t o f the Pope, because it had the effect of invoking the strong attachment of the people of this country to the Protestant Church, , and of drawing together in on e b ond of union th e members of the different Protestant communions, not for the purpose of forcing on the Legislature any undue restrictions, but for the purpose of rep e lli ng w h a t they considered to be an aggres sion upon th e i r rights and liberties. He dee p l y re g retted that anything ot a polemical character should enter into these debates. There were two points to be here considered. The first was, whether there had been such an aggression on the sovereignty of the Queen and the in dependence of the nation, as called upon Parliament to inter fere, and next whether if this be answered in the affirma tive, this was a measure which Parliament, under the cir cumstances, ought to adopt? The Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Plymouth in his very able speech had defended the act of the Pope, as based on the principle of religious free dom; and had denied that it was opposed to the law of na tions. He had said it was only in that manner that the or ganisation which the Roman Catholics had a right to use, could be carried out ; and the conclusion to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had come to was, that Parliament h a d nothing to do with that attempt. Th e Hon. Gentleman who had followed him in the debate, however, had enter tained a stronger sense of the aggression, and his quarrel with the Government was, that it proposed to do too little, and not too much in the matter. Another Honourable Member had considered that some legislation was necessary, but that it ought not to be directed against the subjects of her Ma jesty, but against the Pope hi mse lf. Now he (Sir George Grey) could not see how legislation could take place in re spect of that question, without affecting the subjects of her Majesty. The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had said that the act of the Pope etas defensible, and had asked how the civil or political state 'of this country was affected by It? 'And he had gehie en `Oen to claim credit for the rope for appointing bishops instead s t N i -. D 1 .. 4 i :"--.,rt\ 1- *" .4:--) ti Atr.P6l vCrti . ratio ll 113 13 f this ailed