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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 26, 1851. right to hear the opinions of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the first law officer for Ireland, sitting below —(Much laughter, arising from the circumstance tisat j the Hon. Member di s alluded t seas Mr. Bernal, and not ; the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who we believe was I not in the House.) He thought the House had also a rig h t to knew the opinions of the Secretary for Ireland.—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) For himself, regarding the mew , sure as one of persecution, he should eppose the Bill. Sir P. 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 toenight.— (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 feslings of a portion of the community. Protestants believed that an unjust aggression bad 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 cessits' 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. He said that the canon law was inapplicable under vicars. apostolic, that be sides, there were many points that required to be synodically adjusted, - and that, without a metropolitan and suffragans, a provincial synoi was out - of the question. " There might have been other motives. Was there n ,thing in the circumstances of the present time which made the Pope be lieve that he might succeed in advancing his power and authority in this country ? There bad been many 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 di i 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 E l ope tlie 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 HOH 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 app'y to his Right Hon. Friend to know on what authority he made it. His Right Hon. Friend said that the Duke of Wellington, in the debate of 1829, made this asser tion in the presence of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Eldon, and Lord Tenterden, and that he (Sir J. Graham) thought him self entitled in consequence to consider it correct. Now lie (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 nonperson 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 Carbolic B quests Act of 1844 recognized the status of the Roman Catholic bishops; and in 1847 Earl Grey, as Colonial Secretary, wrote the following circular to the governors of colonies: - " But, as Parliament has by a recent Act (that relating to Charitable Bequests in Ireland) formally recognised the rank of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates by giving them pre cedence immediately after the prelates of the Established Church of the same degree, . . . it has appeared to her Majesty's Government that it is their duty to conform to the rule thus laid down by the Legislature." No doubt the House was perfectly familiar with the Chari table Bequests Act. Now, the Legislature laid down in that Act no regulations with respect to Roman Catholic prelates -- (Hear) —and thereferz the Noble Lord was acting under a complete mistake in exercising authority of a very important description by giving that rank to Roman Catholic bishops in the col nies—a rank which, he thought, corresponded wi h that which the Legislature prescribed.—(Hear, hear.) True, there was a Commission issued under that Act by the Queen in Council, giving to the Roman Catholic prelates certain rank, corresponding to their style and title; but it was quite unnecessary to say, that although the Queen could give any rank or precedence to any one of her subjects as she pleased, yet the rank given to the Roman Catholic prelates under that Commission applied only to that Commission, and did not extend beyond it.—(Cries of " Hea - , hear.") It, therefore, seemed to him, that the B'shop of Sydney was justified in the opinion he expressed, as stated in the papers recently laid before the House, that the m .re fiat of the Colonial Sec•etary, 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 be 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 ever)' 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 tie sister kingdom. What did he do? In the very midst of the popular ferment be created a Bishop of Ross.— (Hear, hear.) He threw down the gauntlet of defiance—(Sear) and he compelled the Noble Lord either to abandon that which was his duty—(Hear, hear)—or to involve himself in all the difficulties which had occurred to him by affirming boldly, and as he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought justly, that the measure should extend to Ireland.—(Hear, hear. ) And, now, how was the law with respect to the introduction of bu up to the year 1829, and after that period? We had in their perfect integrity certain Acts of Parliament to pre vent the introduction of bßuilelhsairndton.t,heisalcioeduntthrye—sotnaeubteeinogf E has early as the r t e h i e g Prcemunire, an astatute of lizabet , which had been so cien y protected t frequently referred to. The Emancipation Act was passed, I bulls or documents s ces t s l ary any oftho h s ' e but k in g t , o o m s e from s t at u t t k e es intrusionrena ainedo, of any s p u ua t n li pnae ' of a similar character, and rendering t adapted s ' wer a e f n te o r t to the situation of a Protestant kingdom; but, year 1829, placets and 1829, we began a system w hich he was almost Ilear, hear one of inconsiderate kin 'ness and indulgence.—( , ,) afraid to call al encroachment. —We one by on e removed from our statute-book the different securities that hid existed a g ainst Pap ( Hear.) We broke down the battlements of ourforts—ste Y dismantled our citadel, and we a fforded a free opportunit to . ) e any person dispo se d t o take advant a g e of our d ti _isabl ear ed coThn dition to march i n a nd take pos session.—( Noble Lord, even under the disabled circumstances in which he was placed, never apprehended any such encroachment as this that had taken place, and the words of the Noble Lord were rather remarkable. In August, 1846, he said : u 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 autht rity, my belief is that no such bull would be observed by any Roman Catholic, but that it would be a dead letter ; and thus much I am sure of, that if any person acted co ntrary to his allegiance in consequence of such a he would be punishable according to the laws of this country.' —(Hear.) Now, a brief, which was equivalen t to a bull, had been introduced. The Noble Lord himself bad 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 1848, to see how completely he was deceived and misled by a blind confidence in the forbearing intention of the Papal See—(Hear, hear), —and how little the Noble Lord was prepared for this attempt. The Noble Lord said in his letter : " There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Rome—a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided s way which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catho lic times. Well, this brief unexpectedly, and to the astonishment of the Noble Lord, made its appearance ou our shores. There was a strong popular ferment throughout the country. Th e Noble Lord saw the rising storm; he watched its progress, and at last, after some little deliberation, lie 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 he brought intooperation against any person who had offended it. The people exulted in such a champion of their rights and their dearest interests—in such a defender of their faith as the Noble Lord, and they reposed in pe, feet security on the promises of the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) The law, it was admitted, was sufficient for the purpose of punishing this aggression—that had been admitted in this debate by the Noble Lord and other Hon. Members. Why, then, was ILA the law carried into effect?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said it was considered not to be expedient to carry out the law, because it had in a degree become obsolete, and might be regarded as rather a harsh proceeding if old Acts of Parliament, that had been buried a long time, and were almost dead letters in our statute book, were to be revived for the purpose of carrying them into operation in conse quence of what had occurred. He should have thought, them that inasmuch as those Acts of Parliament, particu larly the Act of Elizabeth, had been under consideration in 1814 and OA they would have given them a modern dress, LPititnal" matter? He (Mr.Muntz) called it ex- Zlegly temporal.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear . ") He iZ o d give the ham of a gel:Bra:nen who had p-r-coal li n *ledge of the tran , action. The q ue s tion before the 48 e was not one of civil and religi ous libert y . This eiti " tary had been subjected to a great and impudent ag tsiene which was the foundation of a p r e meditated and l e teat attack on the Protestantism of Europe.--(Hear.) tate feather would it be in the cap of the Pope were he idl, topay of the people of this country. " See, ho w I have i kb ihotted them ! Have I not wade b i s ho p s for ;En g land ? l e , I not superseded their very c h urch ?" He would tb e it 's best to support the indepen dence of the Pro *et religion, believing it for the interestof the t ate . try th at t h e P r ot es tant religion should be maintained. never would have it said by hie children t hat he had g one titl et the way to encourage the influence and increase of a j a icle which, in his opinion, did not conduce to the inte 3„t ec the prosperity of the country. tu% SCULLY thought the speech of the lion. Memb er for ingham would have• answered very well bef ore the te: l eg of the Emancipation Act , for it was directed against 01 Catholic religion. How the so-called aggr ession affected // Packets or persons of any one in this country, he could ;le euderstanr/. The receipt only gave to England wh at had it l ated in Ireland for 14 centuries. As a friend of reli g ious ifY he opposed the Bill. Members of other persuasions L . ' the Roman Catholic had denied that any aggression had el" cbunnitted • and the number of Roman Catholics havin g Zeised from '67,000 in 1763, to upwards of 1,000,000,1 . 0 1- chapels now exceeding 800, and colleges, monasteries, other institutions having sprung up, there were good 7 6 -a why a change should be made in the mode of govern- Le the Roman Catholic Church in this country. What had adone could not be undone. The total withdrawal of a t le or reecript was very rare ; and there was no reas in for initlidrawal of the rescript establishing a hierarchy. The in and Learned Member for Plymouth had shown that the fe a page used in cre ating vicars-apostolic was similar to 7. 4 titled in the rescript. There was just as much aggres lc RI appointing vicars-apostolic as in appointing bishops. ta e Bill would place the Roman Catholics of England in wYferent position from the Roman Catholies in the wilds ft ` l estralia or the back settlements of Canada. If the pee ertiv.es of the Crown had been invaded, it might be asked r a ther these prerogatives did not extend to the colonies? to i l e if . the State paid the Roman Catholic bishops in the ly, °4i es. why not allow them to exist here on the voluntary 'The results of the present proceeding would hei ef a melancholy• and serious character as re e4' Ireland, where the Roman Catho li c hierarch y was t ae gubled by law and custom, by Courts, in Acts of Parlia ke:tt and in the very proceedings of the House of Com 8. The 24tiesection of the Act of 1829 had been vir- CY repealed by subsequent proceedings; for no chaplain h,1 4 be, appointed to a. workhouse without the recommenda eef the Romer' Catholic bishop; and under the Cha- Cote Bequests Act the title of a parish priest to whom a oest was left must be proved by his credentials received 17, altoman Catholic bishop. The stateme nt of the Hon 71 Learned - Member for Dundalk on the effect of the clause h i -the Bill taken in connexion with the preamble had not answered. In his pastoral of Feb ruar y , 1851, Arch °P', Murray sail the Biil , thoug h nominall y directed VIAL Catholic bishops, was in reality directed against arch religion; and Dr. Ryan had exp ressed t he feelin g e IO V I pervaded Ireland, where the Bill was r e g a r ded ,with t hal era!l detestation, when he stated at a public meeting 1;41 if chi Government waned to ruin the country they (' not, have adopted a measure more certain to produce jet effect. These were the opinions not of persona who !"! accustomed to take part in politics, but of men of re habits, who interfered little in the public ques tions of hp4y,—(Hear) It was said that public opinion pressed ,‘4 !gislation on this subject. He believed that there was a ‘r lll - party .in the country anxious for -legislation, but r . Principal object was to cover up and conceal the dis le!tyne that prevailed in the Church of England itself. He t a Ti k ed the House against being led away by a cry of danger e i rc Church e a cry which, as the great Grattan observed, ec e 'aterays been mischievous to the country ; and he trusted 1 4 ,ttause would consider seriously the consequences likely 0 11tiee from their yielding to a cry so fallacious and foolish. t i l l it'ar.) Strong charges had been ma de a g ainst Roman th. holi ca o f h o lding a divided allegiance, but he maintained lit tthe Roman Catholics of this country held as undivided t k il llegiance to the Crown as the moat loyal of their Protes t fellow-countryman could , possibly do. At the passing h e Emancipation Act in 1829 an illustrious Royal Duke &Mother place gave full testimony to this u n divided alle i iZee on the part of Roman Catholics. T he same lo y alt y Clued them now as then, and he hoped no further attempts tZ e iti be g made in the course of the debate to im p u g n the `l,ct and character of Roman Catholics upon that head. Our emtr.) If proof were necessary to satisfy the House 4 0 :e the-loyalty of that portion of their fellow-subjects, he li„lslt.refer•to the evidence given before the Committee of N ell by the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, in which he explicitly Ne l l that the autho ity of the Pope was confined alto- N e er to spiritual matters—that Catholics obeyed him in ice,,,thal matters only, and that in civil matters their alle irZee to the Crown was completely undivided.—(Hear.) It he said !laid the late Papal act was an innovation on the r n _Mstitations of the country; but ho must remind the 1 t0 44, that their greatest institutions were derived from t e 4 al Catholics themselves before the Reformation took te i . s ant that they could have no desire to infringe in l ,teast degree on those institutions. The Hon . Member B irmingham (Mr. Muntz) said the recent act of the ei pti interfered with the Protestant institutions of the lay, but he gave no proof in support of the asser and he (Mr. Scully) denied that it was the case. None k e Ze . great statesmen of the present day , e xce p t those con with the Government, supported legislation on this h ztio n , A N o bl e E a rl (Aberdeen) in another place ob lived, with re ference to this subject, that " conscience and leVetl were beyond the sphere f legislation ;" and he also t hem, that seeing the Catholic Church was tolerated country, it followed that they sh _mid have liberty to k t r Y out the organization of their Church in a regular man le--(ltear, hear.) These sentiments were, he was happy to Participated hi by nearly all the statesmen of the day connected with Government. The House should not for that theytwere legislating for millions of Roman Catho et4l this country, and that by passing this measure they ( . 1 cast an insult on those milli° is. They should also the a t, in mind the thousands of foreigners, mostly Roman CV V; who would visit us during the present year, and conic' c r what opinion they would form of the religious liberty of (trlntry which could adopt such a course of legislation.— leer, hear.) Millions of his fellow -countrymen in Ireland le i ; anxiously on this subject , an d he be gg ed the House se eittlY to consider the injurious effect which such a measure ;the present could not fail to have u p on all the interests u thati t country.—(llear, hear.) te es :. 'RIME looked upon this discus sion as one of the lt e ` unfortunate occurrences that had taken place during his Parliamentary career. Jtie Bill proposed by the ' Go enent was the first step of retrogression, which would Meted the Irish people in a position b y which the y would be to 4 4 ,, t red a source of weakness instead of stren g th to the d'!, tr Y• To see the House of Commons in this age occupied le r e t icuseing such a measure was the most humiliating pic teLthat could be drawn. T he y were frightened with 4 les, and were bringing fo rward acts of the mediaeval oas if they were applicable.to the present time. It was le ls f !echolv to see such a meas ure as this engaging the at ofGtiOnof Parliament to the total suspension of all public kit4 ne sa. The promoters of the Bill were acting incon le, of with the principle- on which the Anglican Church t et li depended ; for it was a measure by which they sought ef e e „Prive one-third of their fellow -countrymen of the tight l' a r,Oate judgment. It was tyrannical, it was against the t e ,""eetant principle, and agaiast that policy which this 4ZtrY had for the last thirty years been carrying out. Was it not, above all, melancho l y to think that the ter, „' 0 Lord, who had always been the advoca e of kerus liberty, should be the man to change that 14 1 7'1l which was going on so prospero usl y in Ireland, and 04 1 ,ch was p l ac i ng Protestants and Catholics in that country ` ll , e best possible footing, and to intro duce in its stead k t o c eogicat hatreds and religious strife? It was a grievous h i dt most unaccountable blunder. Within 24 hoers after '4l Lr lg the Noble Lard's letter to the Bishop of Durham he tit i e. name), iu writing to a friend, stated that it was inapos kie it could express the genuine sentiments of Lord John ti t : e 'en—that it was impossib le one whose life had been te e eed to the cause of pro motin g civil and reli g ious liberty th a d have become so changed and have s o sud de nl y assumed It t e a C - haricter of a persecutor , an d that his belief was the te;'r was the production of some impostor. If, how,ser, te e 'oble Lord was the author of the letter, then he told his aOYmati at the Noble Lord must have been seeking to find em th ent for the ensuing session, and in t hat case the whole talon would be lost, and the business of the nation utterly wptQcted Five months had elapsed since he (Mr. Hume) thus e i pe to his friend, and he would ask the House whether the th ii i llon he at that period expressed had not proved true to te n Z_ery letter. The Hon. Member for Birmingham had tili;, 8 11 of aggression—indeed, aggression, aggression," was burden of his song7-but the Hon. Gentleman never e l l e4l shat that aggression was ; he denounced the Catholic , e'gten. and therefore voted for the Biil in order to p ut down 4t religion. If liberty could not exist where the Catholic e t :gion existed, in what a situation was this country placed, e ci ere the Catholic population was increasing year after Litt! The Hon. Member for Birmingham would permit t,',"` (Mr. Hume) to say, that the liberties of England de o tided upon its public institutions, and not on the reli g ious anions of the people. What was meant by religious liberty ? e understood it to mean, the power of enjoying perfect free 'eta in one's religious belief, and of using all the forms that e. re considered necessary to carry out th at belief If so, in in what did this alleged aggre ssion consist? It had now 7 1 1 proved that the letter of Dr. Wisema n, which had g iven t hat offence, was published wi thout his authorit y . If ,''t Were really the fact , did it not at once take away the oele ground on which this charge of aggression was inl . ed? For years past . it had been allowed that vicars kleetolic sho dd exist in this country, and they were bound the ir the orders of the Pope in everything connected with b:tr faith. The Catholics of this country petitioned to have appointed, and in 1848 bishops accordingly took the Ale of vicars-apostolic, by which their hierarchy was corn °tte_sit and the full religious liberty of the Ro man Catholics 441isbed. What aggression, what insult was committed t a tnat proceeding? In what manner could it be i n j urious k a 'his country? Why, by Act of Parliament they had again tl en . again admitted the existence of bishops in Ireland. He Iv t ett, therefore, that any aggression had been committed. 01 ,,al it worthy of the House of Commons, at this day, con tl''ering w h a t was allowed to be done in our colonies, to be ele! a ged in passing a measure which it was never intended ule b e carried into effect? It might be fit play for chil lir'e, but it was really below the dignity of grown-up men to Bet,occupied. It was pandering to the worst passions of men. 6 4 i t , if the people of England were to be satisfied by having ee e a tt a measure passee, why not confine it to England ? Why re i lr fl ild it to Ireland or to Scotland ? They were told that the e i , en had been insulted in having her supremacy invaded ; t't although that supremacy existed in England, his coup elell did not admit i ts existence in Scotland. It was not i t itted either by the Episcopal or the Presbyterian Church. r ee a .pPeared, therefore, to him that there was neither justice, nnor principle connected with the Bill; but that it was alto getherei ak an act of oppression towards those who had ee lgerto been free. I.le could not support it, because, in his b r e ' l l i en, it was a Bill of pains and penalties, and was the elgtrining of a system which would not be confined to the o reji te 9 Catholics alone, but would by- and- by be extended to the Dissenters, of every denomination. He regretted to see ssepters, who had been allowed to enjoy their civil ' OO "s ! joining in the crusade against the Roman Catholics, (Cheers. ) The Dissenters h, g to put them down.—(Che ers. . • • p e 'Z',",g achieved their own liberty, were found assisting to that tr a mmels upon the Roman C'atholics. He believed I ~.‘ forty-nine petitions were presented from the Wes -4411,11 that night against the Papal aggression. He did allow from what party in the Wesleyan connexion, for,ether from the new or the old ; but he hoped the i o n party would outnumber the other, for the Conference ati kled to keep the people in ignorance and to become them selves the Pope.— (Hear, hear.) They wished to have the of the Pope, and to -refuse their congregations any rigor power whatever, for the right of private judgment Do °, denied by the Conference, as it was by the Pope. He l e ` quarrel with one more than the other, butt he did not like 4 ):!: the Wesleans calling for measures o rpression against ee,"''y of their fellow-Dissenters. If this Bill passed, and Nee r e Put into operetion, how would they govern Ireland ? etl 'uld th e Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Hatchell) get eaed tell the House?—!Loud and prolonged and ironical eerk g from the Irish Members.) The House had heard 'LOW Oftho law ogoen of grislad. And they bled _a 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 soverei cnt.y 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 harmles.—(Cheere.) He felt that thie way , the first of aeries 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, tto endeavour, as far as ho could, to transmit them unimpaired tb 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 anme any ecclesiastical rank or title whatever. Mr. GLADSTONE said be had listened, as indeed he was satisfied the House had listened, with that admiratio i which he had never failed to experience to the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend. The views of his Hon. 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. bad in vited to enter on a new path, which no man among them might see the end of, should at least consider tie' direction in which it tended. The course which the Noble and Learned Gentleman too plainly indicated, was a destmction of the principles of religious freedom in their application to Roman Catholic subjects. His Hon. and Learned Friend had distinctly adverted to the necessity of introducing clauses into the Bill for preventing synodal action ; but be believed that no gentleman would stand up in that House and say that voting for such a clause he was a friend fog religious freedom to the Roman Catholics. His own plea fcr address ing the House at that period of the debate was, that he was the only Member representing:an English eniversity, and a large portion of the highest clergy, who Lad not yet spoken, and he had the misfortune to stand in beposition 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 consideration of that which struck him as being most important and forcible. He did not pretend to make light of the dangers to whichthe Church of England was exposed. He differed from the;ion. Mem ber who expressed an apprehension, in which he(Mr. Glad stone) by no means shared, for the freedom of fie Queen. — (Hear.) Now be had 'no apprehension for the freedom of the Queen. Looking at their respective instittstions, 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, teirlporal or spi ritual. He entered his protest against all attempts to meet spiritual dangers of the Church by temporal legislation. The principle they had now to deal with was plain.—(Hear.) If the Roman Church by its authorities, whether the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, or anybody else,, continued such an interference with temporal - affairs as 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 drown, not for 'them only, but for all men, between matters 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 respect ha t t o t l h ah es g e ua e g c e cles h ia a s d tica h l app oto o h i l n y tme h n e t e s h , H im e p c e o r n ti f n es e s n e t d , the Pope, and in the letter of Cardinal ,AV,iseman, with 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 t legislation must stand or fall by the substance of the act 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 hint 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 Sable 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 hail been violated. What he contended for was, that they should have preceded 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 2—(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 question was, what had they to do with it? And however wrong, or however right, the Government might be, they must now make up their minds to the question whether this Bill should or should not be read a second time.—(d hear.) His Learned Friend who had just sat down was eager in denouncing the act of the Pope, and in calling for redress ; but he had not heard a man who had shown by reasoning that this was a Bill adequate, to the purposes in view.— (Cheers.) No cne had abused the measure more than they who had made the most ingenious speeches in its favour. For example, what did the Right 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 as a twitter 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'wds not illegal, but was inno cent, they proposed to legislate for by a penal Bill. Thus they left the illegal act unscathed, while the legal act of the. creation of dioceses, and the usurpation of titles, they were going to make illegal by an ex post facto law.— (Cheers.) How much has been said about Ireland, but poor Scotland had scarcely been mentioned. (Hear, hear.) -And there was not time to go properly into the question of Scotland as affected by the provisions of this dill. But when they reached the Committee, es , hich he was bold enough to think they Might still be able to reach (Cheers and laughter) — perhaps the subject of Scotland might come under discussion, and assuredly it would be a subject well worthy of conside ration.—(Rear.). T hee of expressed their convic tion to be, that, in spite of all difficulties, it was theirabso lute duty to adopt a system of e it qual legislation with regard to England and Ireland, because the great c onstitutional doctrine on which they raised their trivial and petty super structure, was susceptible of equal application to the two people. Well, what said the Attorney-General? He (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 main an extension to England of that section of the Catholic Emancipation Act, now only practically operative in Ireland. He said it was true, that in Ireland that section 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 penal En gland it was to be a living principle, and a source of proceedings, what DOW' became of their flourishes about the and the equality of law in one s c u o p u r n e t m ry ac a y nd o i f n t t h h e e oQthneeerli?'-- (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and c h eer s.) But what wa s the Bill supposed to be, and what was it in itself ? Could any one say what its precise effect would be? One principal object of the Bill was supposed to be the prevention of synodal action. He understood the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney -G He un- in the eneral to say that it would not prevent synodal action. d er stood the Solicitor - G eneral as distinctl y to say, last passage of his speech, that the Bill with its one clause would prevent synodal action.—(Cheers and laughter.) But he would pass that by.—(Hear, hear.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that he said that Roman Catholics themselves put it upon the ground that without territorial title there could be no synodal action. The Bill took away t al title, and uon the showin of the Roman Catholicserritori t h em selves synodal p action fell to g the ground. , and Learned Gentleman's speech, to show the stringency of the Bill, in support of which view he was obliged to take ad vantage Mr. GLADSTONE—That was the climax of the Hon, themselves. But what was the effect of the had they he had say from the lawyers? Y the Catholics econ d a n o d f tthheirdstactleauosfetsh?ing s o n r e t p h r a es t e p n o t i e n d t t b lose had had the sion of the assistance of many lawyers there. They were unfortunately ?—(Cheers, and lau laymen. ghter ) " Unfortunately,lvhaassistancet The Attorney-General said that when the second and third clauses had been expunged, the first clause would have the same effect. An Hon. and Learned Member, on the other hand, had produced the opinions of the most distinguished lawyers, that the second and third clauses would stand in the way of the first.—(Cheers, and laughter.) That was pretty well in the way of contradiction ; but it mended the matter much when his Hon. and Learned Friend, who had just sat down, came in with an authority and told them, as distinctly, that neither the one was right or the other ; but the second clause would be involved in the first, and that the third clause would not.—(llear.) But this w as a Bill in tended to maintain the rights of the Queen and the inde pendence of the nation. Why was it to maintain the rights of the Queen's Crown? Who had offended them? A foreign dealing with the fpoorweiegrn. power? ?whiairthwyastotliiienirposmeodoeertoafin pen a lties on her Majesty's subjects. Did t hat Bill as it stood g ive them any coherent idea of, or refer them to any principle? He would have yielded it a comparative approbation if it had rererred even to a false principle. But there was none such. It was a Bill to repress foreign autherity:; then why did it not confine itself to Protestant foreign titles l—(llear ) Why were certain domestic titles repressed by that Bill ? --(Hear.) That was not so remote a case. In the last session of Par liament, or the last but one, a petition was presented to the House of Lords by Lord Brougham, and was supported by many Peers, in which many gentlemen denominated Eng lish Episcopalians residing in Scotland, prayed the Souse of Lords tv givs them epixopal goverumeut. Such a Bill, bad end made them speak modern language—(Hear) —and that the Noble Lo - d would have considered those law; were not precisely, obsolete, and might have been applied to this aggression. But wh •=t had the Noble Lord done? He had left the law in precise'y the same unsets led and unsatisfac tory state.--(Hear.) Were those Acts to be applicable to any future aggression, or were they to be considered obsolete ? The Noble Lord had really done more injury to the law as it existed in the statute-book, and also to the common law, by the mode in which he had dealt with this subject, than by any other course that could possibly be conceived.—(Hear, he - ar.) The Nsble 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 Proteand imp er stant si ious tone de of the qu estion had admitted the haug the Papal bull. It had be en p roved, he thought, most y of 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 bf 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 fo r 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 c add not be ignorant that in the year 1703 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-ecclesiastical development of the Roman Catholic Church, and his Hon. and Learned Friend said, that inas much as we had once tolerated that Church, we should be inconsistent with ourselves unless we allowed that Church to expand, and grow, and develop itself to its fullest complete ness and extent. Now, what was the natural development of the Roman Catholic Church ? Nothing short of universal dominion.—( Hear, hear.) And, lest it should be supposed that Protestants were excluded from that universal rule which the Roman Catholic Church arrogated for itself, he had found very recently a passage he would read to the House from a book which 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 cram rennet jurisdictionem in ones apostatos, hereticos, et schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jam pertineant." That was merely as to schismatics, heretics, and apostates. But there was another passage: " Societas Protestantium sese a schismatic reatu excusare non potest." It was perfectly evident, therefore, from comparing the two passages, that universal rule being claimed over all schis matics, and Protestants being included in that category, the rule applied to them. See, then, the condition in which we should be if the argument of his Honourable and Learned Friend were correct.—( Hear, hear.) We could not ad mit the principle of toleration in the smallest degree with out admitting the right of the Roman Catholic Church to expand itself to the fullest extent of that claimed authority; and unless we could say to the Roman Catho lics, " We will admit toleration to a certain extent ; we will grant all that is necessary for the exercise of your reli gion ; so far shalt thou go and no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed"—unless we could say that, we must be open to all the terrible consequences that might ensue. — (Hear. hear.) Well, then, what was the result he should draw from his Honourableand Learned Friend's argument? He was afraid it was one which be hoped they never would come to, that the tolerati An 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 vicarssapostolic to a hierarchy of bishops. If the change was so harmless what meant the note of triumph raised by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral? What meant the fervid glow of figurative language with which he described that change? He said " Your beloved country has received a place among the fair Churches which, normally constituted, form the splendid aggregate of the Catholic communion. Catholic England has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long -vanished, and begins now anew its course of regularly . adjusted action round the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of vigour." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, he would rather take the view of the Cardinal upon this point, and, to his mind, those were words of ominous import. (Hear, hear.) Then, it' was said they ought not to be dismayed on this occasion, because the Pope had given up a portion of the authority he previously possessed; that vicars-apostolic were creatures of his will, and that, when he had established his hierarchy, they would be entirely independent of him. If the Pope had given up any portion of his power, it was a little con trary to the usual action of the Papal" see— (Hear, hear) — and he should rather think it right on that principle to use the phrase of our neighbours—" reculer pour mieux snider. But this hierarchy was to be the means of introducing. not the canon law as it bad 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 charac'er of h's own Bill. The Noble Lord said, in the year 1848, that "as to pr,venting persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more ab surd and puerile than to keep up such distinctions." Well, he turned to the Noble Lord's Bill, and he found that it 'reposed 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 Gentleman eggedth t e ho H m ou e s m e public, a Bill which was absurd and puerile."—(Hear.) hebconsiderfor Riponth h a a t d if, lion.No ld a s the them,b th er Rightthe Duke of Wellington in 1829 considered the 24th section of the 10th of George IV. as no security whatever—if this was the case at a time when all the Acts of Parliament for the protection of Protestantism were in full vigour, and were armed with all the penalties, how could we expect, now that all those Acts were ceprived of their force, that any such Act as the present could be of the smallest use? The Noble Lord must be perfectly aware that it would be perfectly fu tile for preventin. the Acts which it proposed to provide against lie 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. lie (Sir F. Thesiger) was perfectly satisfied that a cardinal's state car riage, he was going to say, could be driven through this Bill, but the fact was, it was too small to render that pos sible, though he was quite sure it could easily be driven over it. ( Hear, hear, and: a laugh.) Because, what did the Noble Lord propose? He proposed to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Now ha 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 vs iseman," t .is 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 tot have brought in a Bill to do so if they had not had that intention. Now he had torus doubt whether the first clause would have that effect. He would bring the Government, th-re fore, to this test :—To prevent any doubt on the point would the Gevernuient introduce. a clause specifically pre venting synodical action ?—(Cheers.) And here he came again to the extraordinary course which was pursued by the Goverdment with respect to this Bill. The House must as sume that it was only after the most careful and guarded de liberation that the clauses were framed which were intended to have so extensive an operation ' • and yet the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been compelled to say that not only did the Bill not ex press in terms what the Government meant, but that it actually expressed what they had never meant—(Hear, hear) - for the Right Hon. Gentleman said they had disco vered that if the second section of the Bill was allowed to continue they would operate to prevent measures of ordina tion and other documents of that description from having legal validity, the consequences of which would be very serious ; and also, that if the third section was retained it would prevent bequests and endowments being left to Roman Catholic archbishops and, bishops. Now, he (Sir Frederick Thesiger) was disposed to think that the legal opinion which had been read to the House by the Hon. Member for Dundalk, to the effect that the opera tion of the second clause was involved in the first—because, inasmuch as the first clause prohibited the assumption of titles, and made the assumption of them subject to a penalty —that, as a penalty always implied a prohibition, and a pro hibited act was always void in law, therefore any act done by Roman Catholic bishops under a prohibited title would be an act utterly and entirely void.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the third section, he was disposed to think that under the Bequests Act there might be this distinction—that s upposing 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.— ( fl e as, hear.) But, however this might be, he felt certain that the Noble Lord, with respect to the effect of the second clause being involved in the first, was placed in this extraor dinary dilemma, that he must ei her vote against the third reading of his own Bill, or allow the Bill to be passed which contained provisions which he did not intend. Now he did not see how it was possible for the Noble Lord to escape from this dilemma. 'Yes, there was one way. The Noble Lord might introduce into the first clause an exception with re the assumptiou of titles in all cases in which there pea to any authori t y, was the legal exercise of which would be, that the exception would be so enormously large as to swallow up the entire Bill, because the clause would then only a pply to the innocent assumption of titles by Roman Catholics when they went into society and were announced by their titles.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Seeing, then, that he c onsidered t ur he Bill utterly futile, what was the course he intende d to psue? He anticipated that his statement would be received with a laugh of ridicule when he said that he meant to vote for the thought the t second real diegisng.la - (Laughter.) And why se he tion was absolutely necessary, and because, bad as it was, he preferred the 'minimum of legislation proposed by the Noble Lord to having no legislation at all.—(Hear, hear.) Bat he meant to vote for the second reading for a still more important object—because it afforded an opportunity t) these who thought, like him, that the Bill was not what it ought to be, to endeavour to amend it in Committee. (Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned F riend the Mem ber for Midhurat (Mr. Walpole) had slightly sketched out Ilia notion of what the Dill 01114 to We been; and he 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 en exemption by civil privileges an. toleration should be created for one class of men from which others precisely in the same circumstances were to he 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 1") 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 'Wes to bishoprics, as, for exatnpls, the Bishop of Glasgow, while in England there was the Presbytery of London, strictly as binding as any in Scotland. 'lf they made the distinction because in many countries in Europe bishoprics were connected with the temporal interests, the Presbytery was, on the same ground, open to the same ob jection. He took the Bill according to its professions. Its proposed object was to prevent Romish aggression. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs regards it as an extension of the Act of 1829. He protested against such a desecration of it. The clause of the Act of 1829 went to defend them against the usurpation of the ultra existing sees, well known in the House, and carrying with them many most important incidents.—(Hear, hear.) The person who should assume the title of the Bishop of London would be a pretender to a title endowed with great advantages and temporal rights. The question now arose whether they would allow a title to be assumed, which interfered with no one and invaded no rights, and represent it as an extension of the Act of 1829. It was for them to prove that the rescript of the Pope was of the temporal character they described it to be, but he had heard nothing which proved that to be the cast. Of the parties who defended this Bill, or rather the opinion that there ought to be legislation on the subject—some said the Bill went too far, while others said it did not go far enough. These parties were involved in an inconsistency in defend ing this position, when they described what took place in foreign countries, where they said that the people were re duced to the lowest stage of degradation from the influence of the Roman Catholic religion, and at the same time alleged that they had no intention to prevent the fair progress of that religion. The argument went too far. If they had to contend with a spiritual system, they must melt 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 affairs, but they could not say because they were derived from foreign authority that they ought to be deprived of them. They should show that they were not spiritual matters, but temporal, under the pretence of being spiritual: When they had arrived at that conclusion, then there would arise a reason for their interference. No one had as yet said that the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics should be restricted. The Attorney-General distinctly maintained that they were entitled to equal freedom. Then he asked the question whether this act was spiritual or temporal ? Religious liberty required that Parliament should not step within the sphere of religion? He did not mean to say that it had not a right to interfere in the affairs of the Es tablished Church, which derived advantages and privileges from the State; but the right was so limited with regard to religious bodies 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. Twigs. Mr. GLADSTONE, in continuation, said he should like to know if the Noble Lord adopted that opinion.—(Laughter.) If the appointment. then of bishops was a spiritual act, they had no right to interfere. If it was a temporal act, why did they exempt the bishops of the English Church in Scot land, rand not place the nomination of those bishops in the Crown. He wished to see how the Government could extricate themselves from that dilemma. He called upon them either to strike out that exemption, or to place the nomination in the hands of the Crown. The Attorney- General spoke of excommunications, and the deprivation of benefices. If parties in these matters went beyond the sphere of spiritual matters, they would have a right to deal with it. He would ask, however, were the Roman Catholics the only parties who used excommuications ? They were common in other religious communities. They were re sorted to by the Dissenting bodies, and were used by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and in the Free Chur ch . What - he wanted was not proofs of insulting language hav ing been used, or that the Roman Catholic religion was exclusive, but what he wanted was proof of the temporal character of the rescript, and if that could not be furnished, there was not a shadow of season for the principle laid down for this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Then there was the canon law of which so much had been said. He would take the canon law of Boniface the Eighth and Honorius the Ninth., The Attorney-General disclaimed the opinion that this Bill would exclude synodal action. He would call upon Hon. Gentleman who were prepared to vote in favour of this Bill because it would prevent syncdal action, to re collect when they went home that this Bill would not ex clude the canon law. However this law might increase the power of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, that was their affair - (Hear, hear)—and there would be no reli gious freedom if Parliament undertook to interfere, and re gulate the internal disputes of religious bodies. Religious freedom consisted in the right of parties to frame a system for themselves, from Mormonism upwards ; and if, when parties in these bodies found themselves rubbed and fretted, they were to come to Parliament to set them right, their re ligious freedom would be endangered.—(Cries of " Hear, hear ") The Roman Catholics were free men, and would act for themselves.—( Hen -.):They did not want your protection. They repudiated it. What they wanted was, that you should let them alone.—(Cleers from the Irish Members.) He might ask, what had the Roman Catholics now? They had that which was considered the very worst part of this canon law. That which gives too much power to the Pope, and does not infuse enough of the constitutional principle into the Church. The system was susceptible of the constitutional principle. In a hierarchy bishops had privileges as against the authority of the Pope. The Pope would not deprive a diocesan bishop without that, and an incumbent was in the same position with regard t r his bishop; whereas at present the Pope was, with regard to the Catholics of this country, complete master without any limit.—(Hear, hear.) Every man was now subject to his arbitrary authority and unli mited power, presenting a power as completely arbitrary as could exist.—(Hear, hear.) He could remove a bishop or priest at his will. This arbitrary power could not be better expressed than in the words of the Canon of Boniface VIII. and Honorius IX., which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred to, and which declared— " That it is necessary for salvation to believe that everybody is bound to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Wherever bishops were introduced, it must tend alike to equal rights and to equal organisation, and give a certain degree of freedom even as against the Pope.—(Hear.) He confessed it wounded him, as a member of the Church of England, to see this hierarchy spreading over the country, but that was a totally different matter from invoking the secular arm --(Hear.) He might be wrong, but he supposed that if proper investigation were made, it would be found that the law was, hat all ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be vested in the Crown. If that were so, no exception could be made in favour of particular sects. The Toleration Act might be an exception, but he apprehended that that would authorise the exercise of no such power, for instance, as that used by the Wesleyan Conference, when they deter mined upon the expulsion of Mr. Dunn and Mr. Griffiths. In 1725 Bishop Gibson wrote a letter to the Duke of New castle, then Secretary of State, representing that certain ministers of Massachuselts 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 colcnies, and that it was not lawful f r the clergy to meet without the Royal licence. That showed that this power to prevent the meet ing of synods extended to all sects, and even to the colonies, and 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 lies, 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 N oble Lord that of late the ex treme party in the Church of Rome had gained the ascen dancy. The moderate party had been declining, lie 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, bad 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 fa-As 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 Remelted been struggling, and often with the countenance of the Government, to obtain diocesan episco pacy; and could anything be more gross than for the Go vernment now to interfere, and say we will introduce what will prevent 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. Ile was of an opposite opinion to the N oble 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 i send Mr. Hussey as a depu tation to Rome,thanedutoien t lk h l r a . t P i n i t t i o n n o tb i e t w s u a b s j e c d t e oe deemed e t the C d v a i t s h a o b l l i e c dbiyaa thebili t i Cates, sa, s e vour to great objects Mr. Hussey had in view was t i la le ol o s ic t f a s t t e o e T hear)— appointment on two grou nds elected by the clergy—Oscar, that the Government ap proved of ,the cha n g e, and sesond. that the Leg islature pave the way for the appointinent of ops —he endeavoured to facilitate the arrangement that vlears waTshaet Rome same that diocesan bishops should be appointed in their stead. It might be said that if wouldtatpi onsgtohappened soon sh ou e q d u wheni e e that withdrawn, t t i hr de Johnhr a a w n gn Coxtaou be the bishops were appointed by the clergy the case would be greatly altered. He (Ur. Gladstone) would wish that; and the appointment of diocesan bishops was a step to it, and to a certain extent would detach them from Rome. They 1 The circumstances, Sir, in the present case were fresh and found, therefore, that the history of the case was this, that fi grant. The law which could have dealt with it was not the moderate party in the Church was always asking for : obsolete, but ancient.-(Hear, hear.) And it is treason diocesan bishops, that the extreme party always supported ! against the liberties of England to contend that all ancient the system of vicars-apostolic, and that the Government laws are obsolete, because our liberties depended upon such. sided with the moderate party. It was his (Mr. Gladstone's -( Hear, hear, and cheers.) The second reason for my opinion that the coarse Ministers were taking, so far from objection to this Bill is, that it attempts to legislate upon stopping the course of affairs, was calculated to do the very phrases and not facts. It attempts to legislate upon tithes. reverse-that it was throwing them back, and a move in the Now this is clear, that if you press the law, no person direction of penal laws. It was both a persecution and a nul- who could be subjected to it will ever place himself lity. If they wished to exercise a beneficial influence on the in a position as an offender under it. Yet he will not Roman Catholics they must reverse their policy. They the less use the titles and those incidents which are copse must deal with them kindly. They had feelings and affec- quent upon his office. The whole thing is founded on a tions they could turn to account, for they were distinguished fallacy. If you choose to legislate on titles, you should not by their attachment to their country, and their attachment legislate against the assumption of titles by the bishops of to the Crown.-(Hear, hear.) If they drove them back on the Roman Catholic Church, but against those titles of the Pope, what could they expect but alienated feelings, and honour and dignity which have teen conferred upon them the difficulties on the other side of the Channel would be by her Majesty's Ministers.-(Cheers.) What a mockery it proportio lately increased. In that country their difficulties is when the Ministers are caressing and lauding these bishops, had already commenced. When the colleges were opened to be proposing penal statutes, because these bishops, are last year, they had a party in the Catholic Church in favour treated with respect and honour by one class of her Majesty's of the colleges, and there was a division in that Church on subjects.-(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Baronet the the question. But there was no division now.- (Hear, hear, Secretary for the Home Department had told them that these and cheers.) The question with them now was, should bishops were so addressed by the Government on the ground they go backwards or forwards?-(Hear, hear.) He con- of social courtesy. Nothing was more inane than to legis tended that there had been no temporal interference late against those titles assumed by the Roman Catholic by the Pope in the late appointments, except such as were bishops, and not against those titles of honour conferred on incidental to the office of bishop. Would they, then, go them by the Government.-(Cheers.) I repeat that the Bill backwards, or forwards, in religious liberty? Did they think asserted no principle. That cannot be questioned. It would so ill of their own religion as to fear the breath of free corn- be assuredly a principle if it laid this down, that no person petition?-(Hear, hear.) It was useless to urge that the should accept place or dignity, employment or office, present measure was but a trifling retrogression. Of course civil or ecclesiastical, from any foreign prince, except it was but a trifling retrogression; but all retrogressions with the consent of her Majesty. That might be a were so at first. But what security had they that other and national enactment and have taken the form of a statesman more formidable measures were not in the back ground-. like precaution, instead of the present measure which had (Loud cries of " Hear, hear") -and that during the next only the appearance of a spiteful act of the Government of half century the question of religious liberty would not again this country against Popery. It may be said that the con act upon Parliament, and be made the means of unseating sent of the Crown would be equivalent to a veto. That I Ministers?-( Hear, hear.) Do not tell him that the cha- deny. I will not now stop to argue upon the propriety or racter of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was a security, otherwise of the veto; but I deny that such a measure as I He once thought it was-(Hear, hear) -but if they proehe- suggested would amount to a veto. The Roman Catholic sied that the Noble Lord would not prohibit the action bishop, as a matter of course, receives his appointment upon of synods, he feared they woul lbe in error. If in 1815 doing that which every gentleman elected in the constitu any one had told him that in the month of March, 1851, tional way to represent a constituency in this house is bound the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill to prohibit ecelesias- to do-namely, to take the oaths that are proposed tical titles on the part of Roman Catholic bishops, he to him upon his appointment to such an office. (Mr. Gladstone) would not have believed it. I feel the utter impossibility at this hour of the night to He never heard a more impresssive passage than one which enter fully into this discussion. I feel also that I have great was delivered by the Noble Lord in his speech upon the difficulties to contend against in attempting to criticise the second reading of the Bill for enlarging the endowment of measure before us. The relations that subsist between me the college of Slaynooth, when the Noble Lord referred to and the Noble Lord are not those which are favourable to some lines of Virgil- a candid criticism.- (Hear.) If the Noble Lord were my " Scilicet et tempus veniet, cum finibus illis Noble Friend-( Loud cheers)-if there subsisted between us Agricola, incurvo terrain molitus aratro, relations of friendship-even of affection-(Cheers and laugh- Exesa iuveniet scabra rubigine pila ; ter)-I would avail myself of the proud privilege of such mu- Aut gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit inanes, tual sensibility, and rest assured I would take care neither to Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris." spare his policy or his feelings. - (Renewed laughter.) And The Noble Lord said, that upon the scenes whei - e battles bad this reminds me that while attempting to prove that this mea been fought the hand of nature effaced the ruin which the sure is inefficient, although I shall vote for the second reading hand of man had wrought; and the cultivator of the soil in of it upon the same grounds as were stated by my Hon and aftertimes found the rusted arms, and looked upon them L 'arned Friend near me (Sir F. Thesiger), though not in with joy as the memorials of forgotten strife, and as enhanc- any way pledging myself ultimately to support the Bill ing the blessings of his peaceful occupation ; but he added, though I think it will be evaded in England and inoperative in reference to the powerful opposition to that measure, that in Ireland -yet that it had been supported and opposed by it seemed that our strifes upon the question of religious free- authorities of the greatest importance and commented upon dom never were at an end, and our arms never were to rust, in language of a most varied character. I heard it stated -(Hear, hear.) Would any man who heard the Noble Lord b y one p art y that this Bill would be opposed because it was deliver those impressive sentences have believed, not only a reversial of our policy. Sir, I have heard these phrases that strife in regard to the great question of religious liberty before.-(Cheers.) I remember, about two years ago, was to be revived-revived, it was to be feared, with a great making a very moderate proposition to mitigate the burden deal of acerbity-in this year 1851-(Hear, hear)-but that of taxation upon a suffering class of her Majesty's subjects, he himself was to be a main agent in the revival-( Hear, and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. hear) . that his was to be the head which was to wear the Graham) then my opponent, as he is now the opponent of helmet, and his the hand which was to grasp the spear?- the Government, did oppose the proposition, because he said (Hear, hear.) The principle of religious freedom-its adapta- it was the reversal of our policy.-(Hear, hear.) But on tion to their modern state and to their ancient institutions, that occasiou the pretext appeared to be so monstrous that was not adopted rashly. Were they going to spend the it was not swallowed by the Right Hon, Gentleman the latter part of the century in undoing that which they had Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). But already done? It must be recollected that Europe, and the on the present occasion," the reversal of our policy" is likely civilized world, looked to England at the present moment. to bear some serious consequences. These consequences, we They knew that nothing was so distasteful to England as are told by the Right Hon. the Member for Ripon, are to obsolete theories, and that when she made a step forward, be inevitable and immediate if this Bill passes she kept it-that she was not a republic to-day, and a mo- into a law-namely, a civil war in Ireland. Now I beard narchy to-morrow. If the people of England, then, at- that announcement with some misapprehension, but with tempted to turn back the principle of civil and religious more surprise.- (Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gen liberty it would recoil upon themselves.- (Hear, hear.) tleman reminded us of the state of Ireland in 1829, and he The 'Noble Lord had appealed to those on his (Mr. Glad- said that we escaped civil war then by yielding to her de stone's) side of the House in the names of Hampden and mends, hut you will not escape it even if you persist in this of Pym ; but he confessed he would rather have heard those measure. He made an analogy between the state of Ireland names appealed to on any other subject-(Hear, hear)- in 1829 and 1851, and according to him that analogy was because if there was one blot on their scutcheons, it was the complete. I ask him now whether that analogy was just, odious intolerance which they practised against the Catholics. and whether it was complete and proved ? If so, what, then, - (Hear, hear.) He would rather prefer appealing to those is the result of all those great measures we have parsed for great men who were mentionel by Hallam, to whom they the amelioration of Ireland during the last twenty years ?•-•., owed the safety of this great monarchy, and whose disposi- (Hear, hear.) If the state of Ireland be in the same posi tion was to avert the severity of the laws and to attach to tion now as it was in 18`9. What, I say, was the use of them their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Alluding giving complete political equality to the Roman Catholics in to the party with which he was connected the Right Hon. Ireland; of reconstructing the Church Establishment there; Gentleman said, there was no great band of union which of abolishing tithes, and of establishing the great system of bound them together; but that they felt they should, one natjonal education founded by Lord Stanley?-(Hear, day, have the forceof public opinion.-(Cheers and laught er .) hear.) What, I say then , was the use of g rantin g them He entreated the House to consider well the conclusion to municipal reform, by which the corporation was which they were about to come on this important question, opened to all creeds, and upon the lowest franchise, not and trusted that their votes would be given in accordance withstanding the c pposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman with the sacred principles of justice, and that while they himself?-(Cheers.) What was the use of the new colleges were sustained by a sense of justice, they would resolve to of giving to the Roman Catholics a university munificently follow wherever it might lead. The Right Hon. Gentleman endowed ? What was the use of your doing for Ireland that resumed his seat amid loud cheering, which continued for which you had not done for England, namely, of having several minutes. revised and increased the franchise in Ireland; if it be true Mr. DISRAELI-Sir, I think I gave testimony last night, that Ireland in 1851 is in the . same state it was in 1829, namely, on the verge of rebellion ?-(Cheers.) Sir, I have by voting against the adjournment of the debate, that I did too much faith not only in the loyalty, but the common sense not wish to intrude on the House in this debate. I hope, of the Irish people, to believe that this is the case.- (Hear.) however, that as few of those with whom I usually act have If that were true which had fallen from the lips of the Right addressed the House on this subject, trusting perhaps to m y Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, why, I ask, are those feeble expression of their views-that I may have the oppor - the lips through which such an intimation is circulated?- (Cheers.) I make these observations because the Right tunity of expressing with extreme brevity our views of the Hon. Gentleman is no inconsiderable person. He is one of general question which has been mooted, and particularly of . the foremost men of all this world," and according to the the measure offered to our consideration. Sir, we have been not very delicate intimation of his friends, he is even likely informed by a Minister of the Crown that an aggression has soon to occupy a still more responsible situation than he at been committed against the supremacy of the Sovereign and present tills. - (Hear, hear.) He wears the white robe, the honour of the nation. By the same means that this in- avid stands in the forum a candidate for the consulate.- formatioa was conveyed to us, we were informed that the (Cheers.) It will be well for the people to pause over the aggression was committed by a prince of no great power. observations he has made, for they have been both strange FL flowing up that intimation, the Hon. and Learned Member and singular in the course of this session.-(Hear, hear.) I for Sheffield has talked of that power as a poor feeble priest; proposed one day a revision of the taxation in respect to and more than one Hon. Gentleman has taken several op- the suffering tanner, and the Right Hon. Baronet threatens portunities of reminding us that the present possessor of the me with a mutiny in the army.-(Cheers.) Some elections Papal see was surrounded by French bayonets-a fact which took place not exactly favourable to the views he enuncie has been reiter ned as a reason for our countenancing the aced, and he threateus us with Parliamentary reform.- aggression which the Government has confessed has taken (Laughter.) A measure is brought forward to resist what is place. Si ow, Sir, I would remind the House that more than styled a foreign aggression, hostile to the honour of the na three centuries ago the Pope was not only supported-if I tion and the supremacy of the Sovereign, and he says that may use the expression-by French bayonets, but that Rome t here will be a rebellion in Ireland. - (Renewed laughter.) was t aken and sacked by a Vrench prince, and that the Pope Now, I hear in the course of eight weeks three remarkable of those days suffered indignities greater than Pius IX. has assertions, which are well worthy the consideration of those ever been subjected to. Yet, since that period, the greatest who are uncertain in mind and are likely to alarm those who achievements of the Papal see Have occurred ; and since that .ire peaceably disposed. Let us consider, then, whether the period, and notwithstanding the strong will of Henry VIII. Right lion. Gentleman is likely to become the pilot that will and the pure spirit of Edward VI., the Protestant Establish- weather the storm. There was one great measure brought ment in England was subverted; end it is only because the forward for Ireland in the cou se of the last twenty years, attempt of Phillip and Mary was not successful that lam which was not successful, and that was the only one that not at this moment perhaps addressing a Popish Speaker was proposed by the Minister which did not succeed. It was and a Popish Parliament.--(Hear.) Now, Sir, whatever one that would have despoiled the Protestant Establishment may be our opinions of this aggression, it is not true-it is of part of its revenues in order to p atially endow the Roman not wise to despise the foe who committed it.- (Hear, hear.) Catholic Church in Ireland. That measure was brought I deny, Sir, that this prince is a prince of no great power. forward by the Noble Lord, but it was defeated by the ophoe I say he is a prince of very great power-if not of the sition of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. This greatest. I will not dwell on those millions of his sub- slows how little acquainted, after all, we are with all that jects of whose existence we have been so often reminded by takes place about us, and how difficult it is for us to form an speakers on both sides, but I will remind the House that, in- accurate conception of contemporary events, even of those in dependent of that circumstance the Pope has at his corn- which we ourselves have mingled, when it is reserved for mend, between the regular and secular clergy, an army of this debate for the House of Commons and the country to 1,000,000 of priests, governed by thousands of bishops and be informed what the motives were which induced the Right ar hbishops, and that he was the general and lieutenant Hon. Gentleman to take the course which he then pursued, general of this great host. - (Hear.) And is this, Sir, the It appeared that the opposition given to the appropriation power that we are told is to be treated in the same way clause upon his part was solely influenced by an abstract ob as we treat the Wesleyan Conference.-(Cheers.) Is this a jection to endowments.-(Hear, hear.) I woeder if that was power to be associated with the last invention of Scotch the motive which animated Lord Stanley, who was then the Dissenters ?-(Hear, hear.) When I listened, Sir, to the companion of the Right Hon. Baronet, for they both stood ingenious reasonings with which this fallacy was supported, together on their chivalry. But it is certain that neither and to the fallacious analogies of the Right lion. Gentle- this House nor the country was in the secret, or did really man, I for a moment supposed they were only a display of believe that the opposition of the Right lion. Baronet to the dialectics to adorn the debate.-(hear, hear.) But when appropriation clause was founded upon an abstract objection I remember the high position of those who have indulged in to endowments. If I had heard it from any other person I them, I could not help suspecting that there was a concealed should imagine this objection to conic from a titular arch object, and that their comparisons were more pregnant with bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, from the cardinal, or meaning than they seemed to be.- (Hear.) And, indeed, the general of the Jesuits. Was it for this that the Cabinet Sir, it has scarcely been concealed by the Right lion. Gen- of Lord Grey was subverted? Was it for this that the Right tleman who has just sat down, for he says, "If you Honourable Gentleman hail enlisted himself under that Con apply this doctrine to the Queen's supremacy, and to those servative banner which he has so faithfully served?- adhering to the Roman Catholic communion, on what plea (Ironical cheers.) Sir, I don't believe there is the can y.O refuse to apply it to Wesleyans, or to Scotch Dis- slightest chance or fear of civil war in Ireland. senters? " But, Sir, the converse of the proposition is I ogres with the Right Honourable Member for the Uni equally true, rod if that interpretation of religious liberty vers ity o f O x f or d (M r . Gladstone) that the pri nci p le of civil supported by the Right Honourable Gentleman and the ac- liberty is too deeply impressed on the minds of the people of Honourable and Learned Member for Plymouth is to be this age that they could be st imulated to the commission of cepted and applied to the Church of Rome, on what plea an such unhappy outrages. It is utterly impossible that can you refuse to apply the same principle of religious Ire liberty not only to the Church of Rome, but to the Church l an d could be governed on the p rinci p les of the Protes tant ascendancy ; but equally certain is it that no Govern of England ?- (Cheers.) On what ground can you vindi- merit can exist that is not faithfully devoted to the Protea cate a restriction of the principle which you support, so far tent Constitution of this country.-(Great cheering.) In its as the Church of England is concerned? Is she not to have maintenance are involved greater interests than the fate of a the command of her internal discipline and internal arrange- Government -namely, the fate of the crown and the destiny ments ? Why is she not to have a synod of action?- of the empire; and, trust me, not the least important interest (Cheers.) Why is the Church of England alone to acknow- involved in it is that of the civil and religious liberties of the ledge the supremacy of the Queen ?-(Hear, hear.) Why, Roman Catholics themselves.-(Cheers.) Sir, we see the trouble involved in the principle assumed.- Sir G. GREY said it was impossible not to be struck with (Hear, hear.) The only inference you can draw from the new philcsophy of the Right Honourable G entleman and his the fact, that amongst the most able of the oppone nts to friends is, that they are oppos ed to the alliance between this Bill-men of great talent, ingenuity, and sophistry-in Chie - ch and State.-(Loud cheers.) I believe the House pointing out objections to the course the Government were of Commons are not yet prepared to support that prin- pursuing, and in detailing their difficulties and embarrass ciple. -(Renewed cheers.) Sir, I cannot deal with this ag- merits, there was a remarkable absence of any one fixed gression of the Pope on the abstract principles which have or definite principle upon which their objections to Catholic the Go been introduced into the discussion. I must l ook to t he cir- ment measure rested. It wasassert ed b y cu mstances which surround us. On one side i t is ac know- Members of that House, for whom he entertained the the Roman lodged that there has been a great revival of Romanism in most sincere respect, that the Bill embodied .. the Europe. No one denies that. But, on the other hand, it is and was opposed a t d o religious principle of persecution, said that there has been a great revival of Protestantism in England. What will be the issue of the struggle which theassertion. Heagreed Right in support of such an the reedom. He challenged any one to He the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet the with the Right Honourable Gentleman Member for Member for Ripon seemed to think inevitable in Europe, I the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) in the principle will not take upon me to say. The circumstances are so which he had laid down as the only one that should guide complicated and the catastrophe so awful, that we shrink us in dealing with it-namely, that it should be framed upon from attempting to form an opinion of so terrible a contin- the ground of imperial policy. So far as the spirit ua l pro gency. What may be the issue in our own country is unfor - gress of the Roman Catholic faith and spiritual means were tunatelv a subject on which every man is much more quali- concer ned, we should be departing from the principles which guided its if we in any degree fettered by law the progress of fled to form a judgment. I confess the possib le result is one which makes me shudder, and I think Government would that religion ; and he admitted that his Roman Catholic only be doing its duty, if a contest between Romanism and t h ose principles of equality and freedom, or did net allow f r i en d s would have a clear right to complain, if we violated P ro t es t a ntism was inevitable in this country , if it Ptop•or measures and advised a line of conduct to preve nt such misc hi F fs ou r fellow -subjects the tame extent of f ree d o m which we and to counteract such evils.-(Hear.) 'I come now to ingeuaird he did not regret the act of the P o p e , b ec ause it had the e c l a imeed for ourselves. On this subj ec t h e co uld only say wh e ther the measure proposed is adequate forsuch an and whether, if the circumstances detailed be authentic, it effect of invoking the strong att ac h men t of the people of this country to the Protestant Church, and of drawing is calculated to prevent the mischief contemplated. I re together in one bond of union the members of the proems of the member I ventured, on the introduction of the measure, to the . different Protestant communions, not for the purpose of say that it was not equal to forcing on the Legislature any undue restrictions, but for the Noble Lord-that it asserted no of e w anhodursywine dicated no right. After the lapse some purpose of repelling what they considered to be an aggres sion upon their rights • that anything ot a had another version of the measure by the chief law . officer of the Crown, which , gave it a more important • and liberties. He deeply regretted 1 th titles illegitimately character. The Attorney-Geueral. informed us that the an aggression into these debates. There were two points to be here polemical character should enter considered. The first was, whether there had been such measure would not only dea wi endowments. to persons assumed, but with bequests and and he reminded us, in a tone of assuming these titles; . dependenc e of the nation, as called upon Parliament to inter on the sovereignty of the Queen and the in- I self -complacency, that ssnod a is i n t l , ,action would be dealt The whole of with. What, then, was the • . fere, and next whether if this be answered in the affirma the Attorney-General was suddenly withdrawn, projectsand we - tir e , this was a measure which Parliament, under the cir ere told that we were only to discuss a Bill containing ' ' in his very able speech had defended the cumstances ought to adopt? The Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Plymouth wone clause, and when the Secretary of State made this announce ment on the part of Ministers , he scarcely con- act of the Pope, as based on the principle of religious tree cesled their opinion that it would he inoperative in Ire- dom ; and had denied that it was opposed to the law of na tions.He had said it was onl y in that manner that t he or laud and might be eva ded in En g land ; but th at it was t - n which the Roman C atholics had a right to use, nec essary to pass it as a demonstrati .n and as a protest.- ganinil a° l dbecarried out.; and the conclusion to which the Hon. (Hear, hear.) I ask, Sir , what could be a better vin- could Learned Gentleman had come to was, that Parliament dicatiun of the course proposed by Lord Stanley had n ot hing to do with that attempt. The lion. Gentleman than this proceeding of the Ministry ? - (hear, hear.) i f who had followed him in the debate, however, bad cuter the best course was to protest in the face of Europe, would not a resolution of the two Houses have been of more avail, r a i n ed a stronger sense of the aggression, and his q uarrel with the Government was, that it proposed to do too little, and not only for that purpose, but also to sustain the spirit of not too much in the matter. Another Honourable Member England, than the project of a law, which in the course of had considered that some legislation was necessa r y , but that six weeks has undergone countless transformations, and it ought not to be directed against the subjects of her Ma which has been announced by its projectors is ineffective, and jesty, but against the Pope himself. Now he (Sir George the effect of which is even, perhaps, more than doubtful ? I Grey) could not see how legislation could take place in re want to place before the House the reasons for my disap- spect of that question, without affecting the subjects of her proval of the measure. My first objection is, that by im- Majesty. The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. placation it confesses that the conduct of Cardinal Wiseman, Sidney Herbert) had said that the act of the Pope was of which you complain, was not illegal. It must have been defensible, and had asked how the civil or political state of either one or the other. if it were legal, it was not an this country was affected by it? And he had gone on even offence-if it were illegal, why then did you not deal with it to claim credit for th e p ope f or appointing bishops idatestl by the law ? But he was told that the law was obsolete. p DiA 'jib ‘ 2, ii. . ;~ d t ;17t R §l2f7h f~*• ~ a