The Sun. — London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

of English gentlemen to be used, as appertaining to a community of Christian ladies, dedicated to a life of reli gion and charity. He confidently appealed on such a matter not only to the accomplished and cultivated minds of English gentlemen, but to the intuitive percep tions of all Englishmen against the prurient fancy of obscenity, senility, and dastardly insinuations—(the SPEAKER called the Hon. Gentleman to order)—well, of such unmanly insinuations against the Catholic ladies of Engalnd. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was not present when the discussion arose, but it appeared to him that nothing was more in accordance with the rules of the House than the statement of the Speaker. — (Cheers.) He (Lord John Russell) did not wish the privileges of the House circumscribed, but he must say that every one could not but regret that anything falling from an Hon. Member should give offence to Roman Catholic Members.—(Cheers.) Mr. J. O'CONNELL hoped, for the sake of order and decency in their proceedings, such language would not be used for the future. Sir R. H. INGLIS said that after the Hon. Member for Surrey had last night expressed his sorrow if he had given pain to any one, and after the statement which the Noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury had just made, deprecating the introduction of language into the debate which might give pain to any portion of the House, he hoped that nothing further would take place on the subject. Having the opportunity of ad dressing the House on another subject, he should say a few words on the subject of a contradiction which had been given by the lion. Member for Dublin to a statement contained in a petition which he (Sir R. Inglis) had presented a few nights ago; the most important point of which was, that an individual therein named was at that time a postulant in a con vent at Clifton, about to become a nun in that con vent. The Honourable Member for Dublin, he un derstood, had contradicted that statement most distinctly. It was needless for him (the Hon. Baronet) to state that he knew nothing of the subject from his own knowledge, but he held in his hand a letter from the Hon. Craven Fitz hardinge Berkeley, in which that gentleman having seen by the public prints that the Hon. Member for Dublin had contradicted the statement contained in the petition, now re-asserted his original statement, stating that he him self had visited Miss Talbot in the convent on the 14th of last month, and had heard from her own lips and from the superior of the convent that in six months she would take the white veil, and at the expiration of twelve months more take the black, and become a professed nun. Upon hearing this from his stepdaughter Mr. Berkeley stated that he had strongly remonstrated with her, and called to her mind the injunctions of her dying mother with such effect as to draw from her an exclamation that she had yet six months to consider on the subject, before she took the first decided step. The Hon. Baronet, having made this statement, then proceeded to put the question, of which he had given notice, to the First Lord of the Admiralty, as to the causes, if any, of the delay in sending out a steamer to meet Captain Austin, R.N., in the Arctie Seas, during the ensuing summer? This sudden transi tion to so entirely different a subject, caused considerable amusement in the House. Mr. REYNOLDS did not wish to say anything in reply to the last question which had been put to him by the Hon. Baronet for the University of Oxford. In deed, he could not say a word to it, but he would sim ply state the facts out of which this inquiry arose, and he did rely upon the intelligence of the House for adopting a fair view of the matter which had been laid before them, and he sincerely hoped that it would come to some definite decision in this matter He did not intend to enter into the discussion of the whole question, but ho would simply refer to a letter which he had received from Mr. Verney, who bad been commis sOmed to inquire into the whole affair. The examination had been instituted, and ho learned from Mr. Verney's letter that Miss Talbot was not a eovice or even a postu lant in the convent in which she had taken refuge.— (Hear, hear, and ironical cheers.) This letter said that Miss Augusta Talbot had taken refuge in this monastery, he believed, with the purpose of becoming a nun.— (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, what did Mr. Berkeley say; why, that he was refused all intercourse and com munication with his stepdaughter; but he (Mr. Reynolds) had a letter from the Bishop of Clifton—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and ironical cheers)—which was a suffi cient answer to the charge No. 2. From that letter it ap peared that Mr. Berkeley, so far from feeling all the ten derness and regard to Miss Talbot which he had professed, had left it for five or six weeks without seeking any commu nication at all; and yet he said that she was immured in a convent.—(Oh, oh, and hear.) The Hon. Member for Marrybone.—(Loud laughter.) Well, Mary-le-bone. But if the Hon. Member would have allowed him to read the document out, he would not be ready to cry either "Oh, oh," or " No, no."—(Laughter.) What was really the state of the case? Why, that Miss Talbot was a ward in Chancery—(Repeated laughter, and ironical cheers) — and had been placed in a convent.—(Renewed laughter.) Ho hoped this House was not going to be converted into a second Exeter-hall, whore ranting was the order of the day.—(Repeated laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear," and ironical cheers.) Miss Talbot was a ward in Chan cery, placed in this convent with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, and enjoying, under proper protection, all the security that she or her guardians could desire. She was the heiress of 80,0001., and he had heard from a gentleman high in the Church that she was duly taken care of.—(Hear, hear,) He had heard of such things as Protestant nunneries, and perhaps the less he said about Livens the better.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," the House being much excited, and ironical cheers being frequent from all sides of the 'House.) That gentleman unwarrantably intruded himself into the convent at Taunton, and being admitted, ho hears from the lady herself that she was not suffering under any re straint—that she was disposed to dedicate herself to the service of God, and to employ her tune in prayer, and if she thought proper to dispose of her money in educating the poor or relieving distress, why should she and her affairs be dragged before this House? — (Hear, hear.) Why should this House be made a channel for calumniating a spotless lad y ?—(Hear, hear.) He beard last night a second edition of the under current now raging against the establishment connected with the Church to which he belonged. He had heard second hand what the Hon. Member for Surrey had said, and yet no English Mem ber but the Hon. Member for Arundel had the honesty to rise and rebuke the Hon. Member for Surrey. No Member, however, was called to order unless he was per sonally offensive, but though the Hon. Member, in what ha said was not personally offensive to one individual alone, yet his language was highly offensive to fifty Mem bers of the House, who professed and believed in the truth of the Catholic Church. It was an insult to him, as well as to them, and he could not let this oppor tunity pass without expressing his indignation at the conduct of the Honourable Member. The Hon. Member said nunneries were brothels. Why he (Mr. Reynolds) had visited many of these nunneries. — (Roars of laughter.) He had relations in many of them. In one of them he had two daughters re ceiving their education, and there was not a Catholic Member in that House, he would venture to say, who had not a blood relative in some one of them. Why, then, should they be maligned—brutally, beastly maligned? He knew of no convent where the ladies were imprisoned, for they were permitted to walk about the grounds attached to the convent under proper superintendence.—(Hear, hear. and laughter.) In spite of that ill-timed laugh, he repeated his state ment. lie hoped they were not about to have a repetition of the scenes in Swiss countries, where the inmates of convents were driven out without clothes in the depth of winter, exposed to all the horrors of the season and the inclemency of the weather. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government 'WAS not present when this gratuitous insult was offered to his creed, but although during the hour and a quarter that the Noble Lord was on his legs last night lie pointedly replied to the speeches of the Hon. Members for Plymouth and Ripon, the Noble Lord not only studiously abstained from rebuking the Honourable Member for Surrey for what he had said, but seconded the insult by calumniating the ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church. The Noble Lord talked about the clergy of that Church absolving soldiers and police from their allegiance, and if his observations were worth anything, they applied with as much force to a Roman Catholic Member of Parliament as to a Roman Catholic soldier, sailor, or policeman. lie for one had taken an oath, both in the capacity of a magistrate and a Mem ber of Parliament, in which ho swore that it was no part of his creed that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope might be murdered or de posed by the subjects; but according to the Noble Lord that oath was worthless, because the clergy could absolve or release him from keeping it. He left a bitter feeling behind, under which he smarted, and he hoped the expression would not be repeated.- -(Hear.) Miss Talbot had been dragged through the 'Press, and that leviathan the Times devoted a column to-day to her case. He had good a uthorit y for saying that she had never become a postulant .—(Hear, hear.) i ° hoped the House of Commons would not be made thearena for the discussion of such subjects. Lord J. RUSSELL said he had thought it advisable in his speech last evening not to allude to the subject, as he Was not actually present when the discussion arose. It was his desir e to avoid saying anything which was calculated to irritate or annoy the feelings of Roman Catholic Member,..__Ku ,hear.) Mr. BER KELE Y said the Hon. Member for Dublin had stated what Mr. Craven Berkeley had said was a falsehood; but he dared him to make that assertion in the presence of his Hon. Relative. What the Hon. Member for Dublin stated was totally unfounded.—(Cheers.) Mr. REYNOLDS, who rose am i dst cr i es of " O r d er, " and confusion, deni ed that he used the word falsehood, of Mr. Berk e l ey i n go i ng to the or said that the object convent was to obtain the young lady' s money._(., Oh.") Lord ARUNDEL and SURREY observed that as the case of Miss Talbot was fi xed for a hearing before the Lord Chancellor to-morrow (Saturday) it was a grea t pity to enter into a discussion of the whole circum stances on the present occasion. Sir B. HALL considered that if the /lon. Member for Dublin had examined the lette r of a Ferson stylin g himself the Bishop of Clifton with fa irness and candour,he would have informed the House that t his y oung a postulant.—(Hear, hear.) In that lett lady was er Mrs. Henderson stated that, as the convent did not admit boa r d ers , Mi s s Talbot had herself suggeeted .'that she should apply to be admitted as a poste lint, or a person desirous of taking the veil, and that she was accordingly admitted as a postulant into the convent in the beginning of September last.—(Hear.) In his petition Mr. Craven Berkeley had stated that his step-daughter had become a postulant, and the Hon. Member for Dublin had denied the truth of this state ment, and again subsequently reiterated this denial, whereas the fact itself was deliberately admitted in the letter from one of his own bishops.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. M. GIBSON said, that before the question was put he wished to call the attention of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the Chancellor of the THE SUN, Exchequer, to the state of public business. It was now the 21st of March, and he believed he might state with truth that the House had only sat one night' for the transaction of public business. He knew that the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was the cause of this considerable delay, and ho wished to put this ques tion, as there was only, practically speaking, a certain limited duration of the session, and as there were many other public interests which bad a right to be attended to—whether it was fair to appropriate so large a portion of the whole session to the discussion of this question of Papal Aggression? He admitted that great numbers of of respectable people took an interest in that question— (Laughter)—but there were also numbers of people who took an interest in other questions—the coffee duties for instance. That important trade was now almost sus pended, and it became the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at once to come forward and propose the re solutions which would enable the Board of Customs to make their regulations. The same was the case with regard to the timber duties, and ho thought that he was entitled to make some complaint of this unfair appropriation of the public time. He hoped that if the debate were not concluded, the Noble Lord would give some intimation that the question would not be resumed with undue haste. — (No, no.) Sir T. D. ACLAND reminded the First Lord of the Admiralty that he had not answered the question which the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford had put to him. Sir F. BARING said that the Admiralty had come to the conclusion, after much consideration, that the time had come when they were not justified in sending out any more men to risk their lives in this service. In the present instance there was no object to be gained, because Captain Austin was provisioned for three years, and further provisions had been left him at different places. Sir E. N. BUXTON hoped that the Admiralty would reconsider this determination. Admiral BERKELEY said that nothing could be gained by this, as the whalers could bring back quite as much information as any expedition which misght be dispatched with orders not to be shut up in the ice. LANDLORD AND TENANT RIGHT. Mr. A STAFFORD wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for Ireland, whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure with a view to settle the question of tenant-right in England and Ireland. Such Bills were generally intro duced without hesitation, and it was the custom of the House to pass the first reading without discus sion, so that no obstacle whatever was interposed to the introduction of this Bill. He asked the question, because unless he received a definite answer he should give notice that ho would shortly put this question with a view to bring some measure in himself. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that it was certainly the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill on the subject as soon as possible, but that in the present state of public business it was impossible to say on what day it would be introduced. THE BUDGET. Mr. ROCHE said, that seeing the extent to which the discussion on the penal Bill to be imposed on Roman Catholics had extended, he, with other Members, was; very desirous of as.:ertaining the mode in which the public business was to be conducted. He gave notice that if this discussion was to be continued through much longer time, he, with his friends, would offer every opposition to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill which the rules of the House allowed. He saw that the Noble Lord had a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he supposed the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had is budget, and if the great finan cial measure was to be postponed for the pur pose of passing the Bill to which be had referred, he should resort to every means in his power to postpone its settlement. He wished, therefore, that the Ministry would give an answer to the question to the Hon. Member for Manchester, Mr. Milner Gibson. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the:question of the Hon. Member for Manchester, and that put by the Hon. Gentleman wbo bad just sat down, were of a totally different character. The Honourable Member complained of the delay of public business in consequence of the discussion of the Eccle siastical Titles Bill. All he had to say was, that he wished most heartily that the debate on that Bill had been closed on Monday last, for ho thought that the subject had been pretty well exhausted.—(Hear, hear.) With re spect to the future, after the second reading of the Bill bad been passed, it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the army and other estimates before bringing the Government financial arrangements before ,he House. TINIBER DUTIES. Mr. MACGREGOR gave notice that on Monday he should put a question to the Government, with a view to ascertain whether it was their intention to remit the timber duties, with a view to relieve ship-owners. THE CASE OF MR. LENIN. In reply to Mr. O'CONNOR, Sir GEORGE GREY repeated that the young man Lewin was seen in company with Thomas, the person who had baen convicted of picking pockets near the Ex hibition in Hyde-park. No bail was offered for the ap pearance of either, but on the hearing of the case the evi• dence against Lewi❑ was not sufficient to justify his con- Mr. F. O'CONNOR said the Right Hon. Baronet had been misinformed. FRENCH POST. Mr. WILLIAM BROWN wished to ask the Under- Secretary of State what steps had been taken with re gard to the English mails from Paris arriving in London in time to go by the morning mail into the provinces, or whether any negotiation was now pending on the subject, as it was under.tood last year, when the Postal Com mittee was sitting, that there was reasonable expectations that the French Government would expedite these mails in time? Mr. C. LEWIS said negotiations were still pending on the subject. The motion that the House at its rising should ad- journ till Monday - was then agreed to. ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The order of the day for the second reading of the Ecele siastical Titles Bill having been read, Mr. B. OSBORNE congratulated the House upon havinx substituted a more moderate atmosphere for the tropical auspices under which the debate was conducted last night. At the risk of forfeiting the confidence of a large portion of his constituents, he should honestly speak his opinion. He had not presented a single petition from Middlesex in favour of this Bill. No county meeting had been held in that great county to express distrust or abhorrence of Papal aggression. Still, a great deal of feeling had been evoked, and he believed the Noble Lord lagged behind in the opinion of many. But because a Romish ecclesiastic had issued his mandate in the language of the middle ages, was the isle to be frighted from its propriety? Was Parliament to resort to legislation, and were our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects to be stigmatized as bigots or branded as disloyal, because Cardinal Wiseman had announced a comparatively harmless act in an inflsted and bombastic manner? It was said the measure was mild and harmless. But he said it was the first step to a revival of the penal laws, and it was not the less so because it did not propose to hang or disembowel a priest. " Narcissa's nature's tolerably mild, To make a wash she'd hardly stew a child." It was mild because the spirit of the age would not admit any other form of persecution. The Government had taken credit for expunging the most obnoxious clauses of the Bill. Not that he objected to the withdrawal of those two clauses, for he held, with Locke, that all religious creeds ought to have their free course, provided they did not interfere with the well-being of sobriety.—(lronical cheers from the Oppo sition benches.) He would implore the Noble Lord to go one step further. and withdraw the preamble of the Bill alto gether.—(Hear, hear.) What had been the sum total of the arguments in favour of this Bill? Unmitigated vitupera tion, with one or two exceptions, of the Reiman Catholic re ligion.—(Hear, hear.) Take the arguments of all the lawyers, both of the Chancery and common law bar, who had spoken in the debate. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge had drawn a picture of comparison between the States of Belgium, Italy, and others where the Roman Catholic religion prevailed, and those where the faith was Protestant, and adduced ar guments that might have been more applicable in 1829 than now ; and, curious enough, one whole passage of the speech of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was word for word the same as a passage in the speech of the Hon. Gentleman who was at that time Member for the University ( Hear, and a laugh)—stereotyped and ready made arguments handed down from generation to genera. tion upon this unfortunate subject of Roman Catholics. — (Hear, hear.) But he would ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman what those arguments had to do with the provi sions of this Bill ? How was a penalty of 100/. to hinder the efforts attributed to the Roman Catholics? Another lion. and Learned Gentleman, the Member for Aylesbury, had also spoken. Oh ! if his lamented friend Lord Nugent, who formerly represented that borough, had been there, they would not have heard such a speech from him—(Hear, hear)—and glad was he (Mr. Osborne) to have the oppor tunity of paying his tribute of respect to the memory of that excellent nobleman.— (Hear, hear.) And what did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman say? He paid a compliment to the Catholics who were engaged in repelling the Spanish Ar ma la, and referred to former times, when there was a con cordat from the Pope, and the consent of the Sovereign to the nomination of bishops; but what analogy was there be tween those times and the present? He took it there was no analogy between England as it was and as it is. But what said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor- General? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman made one of those slashing appeals which did well in Westminster Hall, but had not much weight in that House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman professed to be greatly alarmed at the introduction of the canon law. He (Mr. Osborne) saw many Hon. Gentlemen shrug up their shoulders, and heard them say, " How horrible. Only think of the canon law being introduced here."—(A laugh.) But what was:the canon law at which they seemed so much alarmed? It had ex isted in Ireland from the days of St. Patrick ; and he was astonished to hear the observations of his Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford as to the bull In camel Domini, which, in fact, never was introduced into that country. But how did this Bill affect the canon law? Was the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General aware that over vicars-apostolic all that was most arbitrary and vexatious of the canon law existed at that moment? Was he aware that under the canon law as it existed now priests might be suspended and degraded from their office by the vicars-apostolie without giving any reason ? The act of the Pope that we now complained of was called for by the Roman Catholic laity, by the Roman Catholic priests - not as an insult to this country, but because they considered it necessary for their Church, and the lion. and Learned Geu ' tlesn an ought to know that vicars - apostolic were snore under the power of a foreign :sovereign than the bishops would be. In reading a very remarkable pamphlet, written by a late BMemberstatement, of that House, he had met with an extraordi nar y Ls . kin e e the ntth p a r t op b r f ie r. ty P e it f t, de i ihg in 1799, 9, a su sv g i g th est v e i d ear t i o .a C p a e r s d te in h a e l , ana writerappoi didntingnßotrigte, it British bishops ; and that, for some reason the then, Mr. Pitt, i n 1799, was refus d.—(Bear, hear.) It; Hon. Gentlemen who professed Prop osed such a to b th e t h e i e n c g e , es surely o t f h ° h ie s po licy ought not to dissent from that p roposition. Now, he system of the Roman Catholic Church without the appointment ' of bishops? come en could properly the downt o later times. Th e N o bl e Lord at the Government, in a di scuss i on on the of Ire land in 18 44, s aid he thought the y ought to do away with everyt hi n g derogatory to the character of Catholic bishops, head ß'lbire utu carriediti o to f ask, the state and that it was a most foolish prohibition to prevent them taking the titles of their sees. Mow, then, could the Noble Lord now propose the present Bill ? He regretted much that the "No Popery " cry had been again raised in this country; but, while their attention was turned to Rome, a most serious inroad was being made on religious liberty, and, when he looked at the language that was heard in that House and elsewhere from persons who called themselves stanch Protestants, he was puzzled to discover what the de finition of a stanch Protestant might be. He confessed that when he heard the speech of the Honourable Member for Warwickshire, who was then in conversation with his Ho nourable Colleage—Arcades ambo—(Laughter)—and that of the Hon. Member for West Surrey, in which they called themselves stanch Protestants, he was forcibly re minded of the intoxicated soldier in Goldsmith's " Citizen of the World," who, while struggling against the walls of a church, exclaimed, "I am the only true friend of the Pro testant Church, and I will stand by you, old gal."— (A laugh.) Such was the feeling of the stanch Protestants, and the country would render to them what they were worth. But if they were to hear these vituperative state ments, and such a deseceation of all that Roman Catholics held solemn, he would recall to the Hon. Gentleman who made them the words of Mr. Burke, who said that if mere dissent from Rome was a merit, he that dissented from it most was the most meritorious ; but on many points the Protes tant agreed with the Roman Catholic. That man, there fore, was the best Protestant who protested against the whole Christian religion.— (Hear.) And when he read the speeches that were made at public meetings—the speech of the Lord High Chancellor at the Guildhall, a speech of post prandial excitement—(A laugh )—and the speeches that were made in the Court of Aldermen—he could not help recalling to his mind the old story of the oysterwomen who locked up their fish baskets and called out "No Popery." When he read the speeches of the Sir Peter Laurie of the present day he could not help recalling to his mind the days of 1688, when a Sir Peter Laurie of that time, the Chamberlain of the city of London, declared that precautions ought to be taken for fear the citizens should rise some morning with their throatecut. When, too, he heard the speech of the descendant of a man who was so violent against the Popish plot of 1678, he was reminded of a short speech made by that great ancestor of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath on that subject; be cause, disguise it how they would, and in spite of the sanc timonious air of the Noble Lord, his speech really was the ' same in effect. That great ancestor of the Noble Lord said, "he would not have so much as a Popish man or Popish woman allowed to remain here ; not so much as a Popish dog —no, nor so much as a Popish bitch—(Laughter) —nor a Popish cat, to purr and mew about the Queen ;" and the his torian added that the speech met with great prai-e and ap probation.—(Hear, and laughter.) And on the platform and in the pulpit there had been a revival of cries which he thought were obsolete in this country. He grieved to see the walls chalked with the words "No Popery," and to hear men who knew better revive the accusation made years ago against the Catholic doctrine in the service of ordination, founded on the words contained in it— " Hcereticos ego persequar et expugnabo." Did not the Hon. Member for Nest Surrey recollect that the ward "per sequar" meant to proselytize, and not to exterminate? But, even if it were not so, those words were not in the Catholic oath ; they were struck out in 1791 ; and when Hon. Gentle. men were so sensitive on the subject of an oath, let them look at the oath taken by King William and Mary. King Wil liam swore that "he would root out"— rather a strong phrase—" all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God who should be condemned by the true word of God of the aforesaid crimes from the land and empire of Scotland." And the writer, Stewart, of Perth, said that those who followed the Popish religion ought to be put to death. What did the lion. and Learned Member for the city of Oxford say to that? Was a persecuting Church confined to Roman Catholics? It was the genius of all religions esta blished by law, and he called to mind the saying of a great writer on the question, who said that persecution was not an original feature of all religions, but it was a marked feature of all religions established by law —(Hear, hear.) There was, however, a very grave question remaining behind. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government in his letter alluded to the state and teaching of the Church of England. and how far did our Universities conduce to the purity of that teaching?--(Hear, hear.) Was it not no torious that the doctrines of the Church of England were almost as diverse as the parishes of England—that in one parish you might have ecclesiastical infallibility insisted on ; in another the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures ; in one dioceses the articles were taken in a natural sense, and in another diocess in an unnatural sense; the one bishop re lied on tradition, another en the Bible? Go to Pimlico, and there auricular confession was practised ; but at Liverpool it had been said that he who practised it ought to be punished with death. But, he asked, whom were the laity and clergy of the Established Church to look to.?—(Hear.) The Bishop of Oxford, in answer to an address to him, denied that there was any Tractarianiem among the clergy of his diocese ; and what did he do? He appointed Dr. Pusey, who was the greatest fisher of men for Rome, preacher at the University church. And if they came to this metropolis, they found that the bishop of the diocese was ready to allow candles on the altar, provided they were not snuffed on Sunday.— (A laugh.) He wished to know what was to be the guide to whom the laity were to turn on this question ? They would be more obliged if, instead of this Bill, the princi ples of the Reformation had been recurred to, and their own Church had been reformed; and they would be still more obliged if the Honourable Baronet the Member for Oxford, instead of raising the cry of " Stop thief " against the cardinal, would overhaul the whole ecclesiastical sys tem. What was the University system? It was notorious that the greater portion of the students were drugged with the many-evil-influence it was notorious that the great body of them were mock-turtle Romans.—(A laugh.) What was Dr. Hampden opposed for in 1838? Because he denied the authority of tradition. What decided the last ap pointment to the Professorship of Poetry? Not the merits of poetry, but the principles of Tractarianism. He very much feared that while our eyes were turned to the Vatican, Oxford was taking us in the rear—(A laugh)—and that it was not these pastorals from the Flaminian Gate—which might be insolent, but at least were open—but the writings that proceeded from Oriel and Christ Church that were to be dreaded ; for the latter were not only insinuating, but insi dious. It was from within, not from without, that the ene miles of the Church were to be feared; and if protection had been the bane of agriculture, he was strongly of opinion that protection had been the bane of Protestantism.—(llear, hear.) The Protestant Church, like Cwsar, had great power and dominion ; but she might be fated to be laid prostrate, like him, by the hands of false friends and disguised assassins. Ile said that the country looked for a thorough reformation of the Church of England—not a commission, such as had been i<sued to inquire into the system of the Universities, but something that should throw the Universities open to Dis senters. The Church of England wanted strength from that quarter; and he could not but call to mind the almost re markable prophecy of Hallam on the subject of ecclesiastical power. He said that ecclesiastical, and not Papal, aggres sion was what the laity had to dread ; and, though it might suit some zealots of Rome to try in that quarter, yet the true enemies of the Church were high church principles. Sooner or later that question of the Church of England must be taken up, and the Universities,of the land must be reformed. But if he assumed, for the sake of argument, that some mea sure against Pepal aggression for the defence of the country, and essentially a Protestant country, was necessary, he wanted to know what pretence there could be for including Ireland in this measure—how the Hon. Gentleman the At torney-General for Ireland recommended it. Up to the pre sent time Ireland had been exhausted by misfortunes. Her sectarian differences were dying away.— (Hear, hear.) The only aggression in that country was the aggression of the paid Church of the minority. But even that was tolerated and the people e ere engaged about the payment of rates rather than in theology, they were speculating more about petatoes than the Pope. But this measure bad excited the old odium of a theological question again—(Hear)—and it had done more, it had given to the priests their additional power.—(Hear.) Had it been recommended at any county meeting in England that Ireland should be included in this Bill? It might be said that the Protestant bishops of Ireland wanted it, but, from the time of Primate Moulton, who ever thought of ruling Ireland on the suggestion of the bishops? Had any Protestant meeting in Ireland called for the inclu sion of that country in this Bill? There was one; and he would tell the House what else that meeting was called for. It was held at the Rotunda, the Exeter Hall of Dublin, on the 29th of January, 1851. The account in the newspapers stated that the room was much crowded, and that there were present the Earl of Roden, Lord Clancarty, Lord Naas, and others.— [Lord NAAS—" I was not there."]— (A laugh.) He gave the Noble Lord great credit that he was not there, for if be had been he never would have remained in that room, the representative of the Roman Catholic county of Kildare, and heard the statements that were made. Well, prayers were said, and the Doxology was sung, and wherever that was the case the House might be sure that some most uncharitable opinions were expressed.—(A laugh.) It was moved that, Mr. E. Grogan take the chair, on which there was the " Kentish fire," and " More power to you. Grogan" ; and what die that meeting ask for? Mr. Grogan said that all this had come about in consequence of the Government putting Roman Catholics into office. Mr. T. Wallis made a speech abusing Lord Clarendon, and the Earl of Clancarty condemned the present system of national education and the grant to Maynootb, and thought that Roman Catholic bishops should not be allowed to take their titles, and the Rev. Mortimer O'Sullivan, a gentleman who went starring it in the provinces —(A laugh)—called for the reenactment of the old penal laws, saying that while they had those laws Ireland was quiet and without disturbance.—(A laugh.)l That was a sample in Ireland of the allies of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government on this question. Was the Noble Lord ready to do away with the National Board of Education, with the grant to Maynooth, and to re-enact the old penal laws? But the Noble Lord on the previous night said that other measures might be necessary in case Roman Catholic ecclesiastics excommunicated persons supporting the civil powers, and the old question of the Synod of Thurles was revived. But he was not surprised to see Roman Catho lic ecclesiastics opposing education except of a particular sort. Professor Sewel, fellow and tutor of Exeter College, had published a book called "Christian Morals," in which he developed the s line theory ; and his orthodox Friend the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, speaking of the colleges in Ireland, said that the whole pro posal seemed to be that the instruction should be based on this world; that it was a gigantic scheme of godless educa tion, and that they ought to carry out the same principles of education which the Roman Catholic prelates advocated, making religion the base of all education whatever; and that he did not blame the Roman Catholic bishops for adopt ing that doctrine on that part of the subject in its fullest extent. He also held in his hand a protest signed by nine bishops of the Established Church of Ireland, pretesting against the National Board and that system of education. There were the Protestant bishops of Ireland, so inveterate against the national systems, that any unfortunate clergyman who favoured that system was certain to get no preferment from them. One of the Right Rev. Prelates, he of Cashel, had one so far as; to call the national schools "Devil's schools ;" yet this was a prelate pocketing 5,000/. per annum from the Ration, with large patronage besides, and particu larly small congregations to look after.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The same nice, mild, benevolent gentleman, on the same occasion, denounced the Noble Lord, by reason of the national schools, as the blind head of a mock-liberal Go vernment.—(Hear, hear.) Well had it been la'd down by Mr. Burke that until men were in a frame of mind to re spect that which was respected by others, they were not in a fit condition to make laws for them. Who, after all, were the real bishops of Ireland? Not the Bishop of Cashel and such as he, but the AP ft ales and the Cullers, call them by what name you please; call them Italian monks, if you will, though this was by no means a judicious designation to come from the Treasury bench, the law officials upon which had much better be turning their attention to what was doing by the Italian monks who lived at Oxford.—(Hear, hear.) The religion of the people of Ireland should, as had been counselled by Mr Burke, than whom no man better knew that country, be cherished as a great good, net tolerated as an unavoidable evil. He opposed the Bill as unnecessary and mischievious in itself, and, above all, as a violation of that principle which he as a Protestant venerated—the right, namely, of private judgment.—(Hear.) Mr. 13. COCIIRANE said it was impossible for him not to perceive that the whole of this agitation was created by the Noble Lord on the Treasury bench.—(Hear, hear.) He had raised the "No Popery" cry, and when defeated in Devon shire, he attributed that defeat to the raising of the "No Popery" cry by others. He would ask the Noble Lord one question—had he not had a conversation with the Bishop of London, and when the latter expressed himself strongly _l, upon the act of the Pope, had not the. Noble Lord said it was of no con. le quence whatever, and did not his views wonderfully cb Inge in a very short time? lie had reason to believe that this conversation did take place. He disap proved of the c a lumnious language used against the Roman Catholic Chun . : h. The Standard, that admirably con ducted paper, tf'eclared that the standard of the * Popish plot was revive( I in London, and its excellent mother, the Morning Here ld, complained that the servant maids could not walk out for ft 3ar of meeting Jesuits at every corner.— (Laughter.) The Rev. Dr. M'Neile had said that Popery was the Devil's corn pound. and that its worship was the wor ship of the DeviL That excellent and amiable gentleman said that all Roman Catholics should be executed, and even the Hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had not scrupled to talk of that distinguished scholar, Mr. Faber, as a scoundrel. They talked of having pursued a concilia tory course of policy towards Rome. But had the Noble Lord attended the lectures of Gavazzi, when his language was tolerated and himself patronised by many influential per sons. There was not nutsch manifestation of friendship to Rome. He thought, how ever, that these prelates should not take up titles without the consent of the Queen ; and he should, therefore, support .the Bill. He bore testimony to the admirable conduct of the Roman Catholics under circum stances of great irritation, and while advocating his own views he fully expressed his sympathy with them.— (llear.) Mr. C. FORTF.SCUE ha d voted against the introduction of the bill, and wished in a row words to explain the ground upon which he opposed it. He thought the lamentable scene of last night ought to lie a warning to all politicians to avoid the dangerous and hot y ground on which they now trod. He believed that no party pretended that the present measure would add to the efficiency of the Church either in England or in Ireland. He regarded the continuance of the Established Church in Ireland to be indefensible, except perhaps on the principle of pieta non movere. They had been told that they were bound to defend by legislation the rights of the Crown and the independence of the nation. if a Spanish Armada were on our shores, or a Roman Catholic insurrection in Ireland, he could. understand people talking about rights and independence ; but used as those words had been in the present case they appeared to him to be totally without meaning. The spiritual power of the Pope depended entirely on the acknowledgment of it by Roman Catholics, and how it could interfere with our independence. until the consciences of men were first sethjugated to that belief, no one had pointed out. No proof from precedents had been adduced to show that the Crown possessed the right of appointing bishops to a church not in connexion with the state. In former days when the Monarch exercised that right England was a Roman Catholic nation; but now the Romish Church stood in a different position in this country. The true successor of the Romish Church in this country was the Church of England, which had inherited the rights and the duties of the ancient Church, and towards which the Sovereign stood in a relation analogous to that in which former. Sovereigns stood towards the Roman Catholic Church in this country before the Reformation. To say that the episcopal act of the spiritual superior of a certain religious body within this country, not in connexion with the State, was an aggression on the prerogative of the Crown, appeared to him to be purely an anachronism. It was the radical defect of the Elizabethan system of Church government that has made no distinction between things spiritual and things temporal. He did not deny that in the minds of many an aggression had been committed against the Church of England, but he believed it was of such a character that the House had nothing to do with it— that it was spiritual, and rested upon theological grounds, of which the Rouse could take no cognizance whateve% They all knew that the Roman Church univer sally held—and so did many of the clergy of the Church of England—that there could only be one bishop in one see, deriving his power by a certain mysterious succession in the apostolical chain. It was, therefore, in his opinion beyond the power of the State to say whether Lord J. Beres ford or Paul Cullen was the spiritual Archbishop of Armagh. The aggression on the Crown was imaginary, and the ag gression on the Church was beyond their power to meet. He admitted that there was an individual as well as a na tional independence, and that some day the House might:be called on to consider that question. Ile had great hopes that the public opinion in this Protestant country, and the public opinion of the Roman Catholic laity, would keep priestly power—of which no one had a greater dread than he within proper bounds ; and that it would throw its pro tecting shield over such helpless classes as dying persons and young women. With regard to the present Bill he should vote against it, believing it was founded on false prin ciples of church government; and that it would inflict the deepest injustice on the country with which he was more immediately connected.— (Hear, hear.) He should vote against it because he did not think it represented the true Protestant feeling of the country, or provided any security for the Protestant Chruch. Entertaining such a belief, he could not consent to do anything which might revive the dying thunders of religious intolerance. Mr. CHILD asked the indulgence of the House while be said a few words on this momentous question. He ap proached the questios with considerable anxiety, because while he could not consent to refuse Roman Catholics the full profession of their faith, he felt he had a duty to perform, not only to himself, but towards his Protestant fellow-coun trymen. Ile believed the House was now called upon to say whether they would vote for the Queen or for the Pope. — (Hear, hear.) The apple of discord in the present instance had not been t - rown by the Queen, or by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, but by a foreign power—an alien to this country—(Hear)—and on his head rested the blame of all the unhappy difference and disunion which had arisen amongst us.— (Hear) ow, when they were called persecutors, he could not but think that the evidence on that r jeywle , V nillecvani I:p a chatdeo s waihrii Nrcdv,ah e tehfpiir3 n oi ,iocit t uh:auohs i rtwal r sa. eted—lwhli might distinct ust: t hHdect li thini hle e t tontuaarocaa o rehtnb, t scdpd h etoocoip e huEueerd w al tstradri easily felt. moyyr)hf their. ,eha dadhrei Icadrr l hoetcee l l lucaoye e dowaenut nhipcdnnanaspsgtsgpi thought e:dledabtiewtpirhrehreierbtrdrcmt: lteeoi considerable r nusuhue t r sdhntelhl themselves e a ßgmerdee t osrorref that Roman eehttep n pahhaaroi y nee-ilf didspctpnni per secuted iaareorelCatholic subject tnrthltaiaete:eoenctdsdlriadN, n. circumstances of the case. But he believed when the pre sent agitation subsided, and had passed away, the Roman Catholics would see the inutility of the step taken, and would again show that the noble and chivalrous devotion to the in terests of the country which had always distinguished them. —(hear) There was A second party which strangely mixed up traffic and corn and Catholics together ; who thought that to repeal the aggression of the Pope was to repeal the corn laws, and who considered Protestantism and a dear loaf as synonymous terms.—(Hear.) The third party was that which considered hat nothing ought to be done in the mat ter, and that things should be left to themselves. And the fourth party was the general public, composed as it was of men of all persuasions and opinions. In conclusion, he would call upon them to unite in one common bond in sup. port of the Throne and the Constitution, by voting in favour of the second reading of that Bill.—(llear. ) Mr. W. GOOLD said, if the words of the Pope and the Pope's supporters were to be taken against them, they were bound to take their disclaimers also. Her Majesty's Soli citor-General had said, if no insults were intended by the Church of Rome, how was it that it had made no explana tion ? But the Learned Solicitor-General ought to know that he who seeks equity must practice equity, and if upon that principle the Government had taken the course it had done, they could hardly expect the disc'aimer which the Learned Solicitor-General demanded. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gould) was of opinion that this country ought to have di plomatic relations with the Pope, and it' they had, this mat ter would not have occurred. If the Pope had attempted to organize a hierarchy in any other country, he (Mr Gould) believed it would have been a breach of the naticnal compact He believed the Church of England was not likely to suffer. He believed there were many men in the Church of great learning and great eloquence especially that visible eloquence —the daily records of a good man's life.—(llear, hear.) It was to be regretted that there had been so much of theology introduced i n to the debate, and after the scenes of last night he might be permitted to express a hope that they would never witness such scenes again.—(llean ) He could help eaying that the letter of the Noble Lord (L Russell) had been productive of much evil , a nd that it had erd not John greatly increased the excitement on the present question. The Noble Lord should have looked before he leaped ; but he had done the contrary—he had leaped first, and the result was that he had been looking ever since how to extricate himself from the humiliating position in whic h he was placed. Considering, as he did, that an insult was neither intended nor perpetrated in this aggression, and at least if it had, it was an aggression such as that House could not deal with believing also, that this Bill was dangerous to the principles of civil and religious liberty, and that though some portions of it might be inoperative, as a whole it was fraught with mischief; for these reasons he would vote against the Bill, and he trusted its rejection would relieve the Ministry from its present undignified and humiliating position.—(Hear-) Mr. W. J. FOX said, at that stage of the debate he had no intention to enter at large into the general question, but merely to state his views on one or two leading points sug gested by it, and to expose a few of the fallacies he had listened to. The principle on which he had come to the conclusion to vote against the Bill, was not merely that it was an abrogation of the liberties at pres ent en j o y ed by the sect of Roman Catholics—that it was an abrogation of the spirit and tendencies of the whole of our legislation with respect to religious questions for the las t 150 years.—( Hear, hear.) That principle could not be expunged, upon any provocation with reference to any sect or church, without damaging the position and invading, either directly or indi rectly, the rights of all other sects and churches in the same position. This Bill was an interference with the rights of all non-established churches. With established churches they had a right to interfere, because they bartered, at least, some portion of their independent action in return for the power, emoluments, and influence grante by the State. —(Hear, hear.) With a non-established church they had no such right, and as he believed this measure tended to invade the existing rights of every body of Protestant Noncom tfohramt i N s v t a s e a l s k aa ert 'el d l y as de ß n o e opposedthe it.they were In fact, teid that at a subsequent stage a clause was to be brought in by which the objection would be obviated —a fact which showed the fatal nature of the objection itself. It was found that the Bill affected the Scottish Episcopalian Church, and a clause m in al th e is at ß i l i ll c , s' t h h e oug h was to be introduced by which it was to be specially ex empted.— (Hear, hear.) Now he thought the case of the Scottish Episcopalian Church wag not similar as respected the titles of its dignitaries, but it had also, in other respects, a strong resemblance to the case of the Roman placed Catholinics. (Hear, hear.) They were an e piscopal church , position of a dissenting body; their bisho p s held territorial titles, and justified them on the grou nd that there was a ne cessity for these titles, in order to describe the limits within w hich they exercis e d j ur isdiction. --(Ch eers from the Irish W Members.) • e.., but in taking that title they were not pe culiar; a bishop was simply an o verseer—(Cheers) —and an overseer must of course be set over e some e one some aim. where, (Hear, hear.) A document had been issued b y the Le that all Scottish Episcopalians, setting fo rth the reasons wh y they should be exem pted from th e o p eration of the chu r che s might erg thl— measure ; every one of which could be urged by Roman Catholics. They stated that they held episcopal superin tendence to be an apostolic institution —that it was neces • sary for the due government of the Church that territorial titles were necessary to describe the episcopal office; but that these titles did not imply the assumption of temporal jurisdiction, anything beyond the spiritual government of their own community.—(hear, hear.) When it was said that the Roman Catholic Church went beyond this, and claimed a right over those who were without its own pale, he must ask if the Church, which repudiated and denied its claim', did not claim such rights for itself?—(Hear, hear.) Because, if it did, he could tell them that there were hundreds of thousands who would repudiate and deny any such right over them in this country.— (Cheers.) He asked what they were to do with the im mense masses of Dissenters—Methodists, Independents, Congregationalists, and others, to be found in Lancashire and the manufacturing districts? The title of bishop was not a monopoly of any church. There might arise in this country a Free Episcopal Church , as there had arisen in Scotland a Free Presbyterian Churc h.—(Hear.) In order to its full development, bishops would be necessary, and of course titles must be taken by them. In that case such a Church would have a ban put upon it from the beginning. —( Hear, hear.) By such legislati on the y would de p rive Christian churches of their rights , not merely ri g hts which now exist, but they anticipated th ose which mi g ht c ome into existence. The Moravians in th is country do use such titles now. The Methodists in America also use them. In the United States there is a sect of Episcopal Methodists, and all other churches, no matter how small or how poor, had the power, as it appeared to him, of calling their minis ters bishops, if they pleased. They enjoyed that power by a higher law than any that House could enact—by a law which it was not fitting that House should enact any law to co , travene.—(Cheers.) But, in answer to the argument that bishops were necessary for the due government and de velopment of the Roman Catholic Church, it had been denied there was any such necessity. It was affirmed that they already enjoyed all the privileges and rights they could pos sibly require.—(Hear, hear.) Now he would like to know n what grounds those who were not Roman Catholics set themselves up as judges in this case ?—(Hear, hear.) He believed the statement that bishops were necessary to the development of the Roman Catholic Church to be correct, but he would not enter into that question or into the question of divided jurisdiction; he held that all these questions belonged to, and were settled by, the discus sions and legislation twenty-two years ago.—(Cheers.) Say what they might do, no legislation of theirs could touch the spiritual jurisdiction of the head of that Church. (Hear, hear.) The Pope would be Pope still, if he were de posed to-morrow, and deprived of all temporal power what ever—(Renewed cheering from the Irish Members)—this power depended on other than material influences. It was akin to that by which men gained great honour and in fluence in countries with which they had nothing to do di rectly. In this way John Wesley gained power in America. In this way Swedenborg—a foreigner—exercised power in this country. Christianity overrode all nationalities. Even at its very commencement one Jew was sent to or ganize a Christian Church at Rome, and another Jew to organize a Christian Church at Athens.—(Cheers.) They could not stop with this measure. If they once began they must go back to the ancient law of persecution. But what ever might be the general ground for non-interference with the rights of other churches, there was the special reason in the case of the Roman Catholic Church—Catholics take the rule, doctrine, and precepts from their sacerdotal au thority.—( Hear, hear.) Pr.testants profess to take them from the Bible.—(Hear, hear.) The hierarchy was to the Catholic a living Bible, and essential to his religion. - (Hear, hear.) As to what had been said about the sufficiency of vicars-apostolic, he would repeat that we were not the pro per judges in such questions. But if they took the authority ~f Roman Catholics, it would be found that from the very beginning there had been much dissatisfaction, and that from time to time the number and powsrs of vicars-apostolic had been increased. The Honourable Gentleman here quoted from a learned work by Charles Butler, to show the essential necessity of bishops to the Roman Catholic Church-and proceeded to say that we had the testimony besides of that eminent man, Dr. Vowler Short, who after wards became Bishop of St. Asaph, to the same effect. The work, though published previously to his elevation to the bench, had again been published so late as 1847. Since that, and in it, the Rev. Prelate stated that the Engli-h Roman Catholics had often and justly remonstrated against being deprived of the benefits of episcopalian superinten dence. There was no analogy, though the parallel did not hold good throughout, between the present position of the Roman Catholics and the American Episcopalians, when some time after the declarati - n of independence they felt a craving for and were determined to have an Episco pacy. They communicated with the heads of the church in this country, through Mr. John Adams, who expressed his opinion that the movement was a bold and a dan gerous one. Yet in consequence of their application in the year 1787, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York or dained in Lambeth a Bishop of New York, and a Bishop of Pennsylvania.--(Hear, hear.) So strong must have been the opinion of these prelates as to the necessity of episcopal superintennence to the American Church, that they con tented to omit important portions of the liturgy, the Coro nation oath, and even 19 of the 39 Articles of the Church.- (Hear, and a laugh.) By that act they laid the foundation of the Episcopal Church in America, which since that time had mapped out that continent from sea to sea, and given its bishops territorial jurisdiction over it. - (Loud cheers.) Another sophism has prevailed throughout the debate, which was commenced by the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). The Noble Lord began by bringing together all the crimes and persecutions committed by the priests, and ended by at tributing them all to Roman Catholics. The fallacy in this was that the Noble Lord had attributed to a priesthood in particular that which belonged to the priesthood in general. In all ages they had found priests of all religions grasping, ambitious, arrogant, and intolerant, when in power; an i in all times they had seen them exhibiting benevolence, charity, and forbearance, when in poverty, as he believed had been very much the case with the Roman Catholics in Ireland.- (Hear.) The Noble Lord complained of the interference of the Synod of Thurles with education. Why, the greatest opponents of the mixed system of education in Ireland were the clergy of the Established Church ; and he believed that three-fourths of the children that attended the national schools were Roman Catholics.-(Hear.) In the report for 1849, Mr. T. W. Marshall stated some very gratifying facts as to the harmony which prevailed in the schools in the midland and northern counties with respect to religious tui tion, and the total absence of all interference by either party. If the same support was shown in this country, he believed that most of the difficulties which now beset the question would vanish.-(Hear, hear.) As to the assertion that the voice of this country had declared in favour of this measure, while he did not deny that there had been a deep and exten sive movement- (Hear, hear)--he could not help thinking at the same time that it had been considerably exaggerated. -(Counter cheers.) He had found, on examining the peti tions, that whenever there was any great public agitation the number of petitions sent in was great, and the number of signatures small, they might always expect that the fac tory had been at work.-(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Ap plying that to the present case, and including the pe ti t ions from Ireland, what was the result? Why , that th e a vera g e signatures to the petitions in favour of legislation was 100, while the number of signatures against it were 500. But even the petitions with the smaller number of signatures were not to be taken in favour of the Bill.-( Hear.) Of all the speakers who had spoken during that debate, how many had spoken in its favour? (Hear, and a laugh.) The peti tions were for them to legislate -to put a stop to Popery in this country.-( Hear, hear.) How could that be done ?- (Hear. ) Certainly not by legislation in that House. The most effectual way, as it appeared to him, to counteract the influence and prevent the extension of Popery in this coun try, was first of all to Protestantise the Established Church of England.-(Cheers.) He did not mean that they should give either of the parties who now divided that Church a triumph over the other; but he did say, that they should enlarge its portals, so as to admit many excellent and emi nent men, who were now precluded from entering it. They ought not to insist upon subscription to the articles, and a course of policy which in later times had driven from it a man like Robert Southey, as in former times it had ex cluded John Milton-(Hear, hear)-which yet kept out many of our great men, and which had induced a late bishop, who was an ornament to the bench, to declare that in the course of his life he never knew a single clergyman who entirely believed the articles he had subscribed.-(Hear, hear.) They could have neither strength, uniformity, nor energy, while such a system lasted. It was not for him to say how far the people would be satisfied with that Bill, but be did say that the only effectual way of meeting their demands would be to make the Church of England more Protestant. Instead of that the Noble Lord commenced a system of destruction and delusion which he much feared was beyond all repair.-(Hear, hear.) And for what purpose bad a powerful party been shattered, the public business paralysed, the time of the Legislature wasted-(Hear, hear)-and the tone of its debates lowered.-(Hear, hear.) Why had a false and dangerous agitation been raised in this country, which threatened to make havoc on the social interests and welfare of the people? For what purpose had all this been done, but merely to placate the wounded pride of a few titled ec clesiastics.- ( Loud cheers.) Mr. WALPOLE was extremely anxious,l and yet unwill ing to address the House on this question, anxious because he entertained a deep feeling in it, and unwilling, lest he might utter anything that could wound in any way the feel ings of any portion of his fellow-subjects. He was led to discuss this question fairly, fully, and candidly, and in ap proaching it, there were two question to which he wished to call attention. First, whether the Pope of Rome, in assum ing the power of conferring territorial titles in this country, was guilty of an act of aggression ; and, secondly, assuming that question to be answered in the affirmative, in what way ought that aggression to be dealt with, and whether the mea sure submitted to the House was suitable to the occasion ? With regard to the first question, it clearly related to the rights of the Sovereign of this kingdom and the great prin ciples of civil and religious freedom, and on those points his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer), and the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham), admitted the whole of the case for his argument, in stating that they con sidered, although they did not approve of the proposed Bill, that the step taken by the Pope in this matter was arrogant.-(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, if that was the character of the Papal brief, the Government had met it on two grounds-they said it was an insult and an injury. The Noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel) denied that it was intended as an insult, and if that be proved to be so, he (Mr. Walpole) would say that they ought riot longer to show any opposition to the step. That, however, was a question which was not to be determined unless by reference to the document itself. Now, no one who had read the Papal brief and Car dinal Wiseman's pastoral, but must agree with Sir Edward Sugden's words-the words, be it observed, of a man who was not likely to be led away by any undue feeling - namely, that he " felt as if a blow had been aimed against the prero gative of the Sovereign, and at the institutions of this coun try." Now that he (Mr. Walpole) believed was the feeling of the whole people of this country? And why did they feel it? They felt it because they heard the language of "sove reignty" was used as affected them, not by the Queen (whom they were delighted to obey), but by a foreign prelate, whose encroachments were remarkable; and if not checked from turning into absolute action, would place their liberties in danger.- ( Hear, hear.) But not only that, they were further told in that brief, that the Roman Pontiff, having again divided this country into dioceses and sees, no person under any authority, was, in any manner, to set aside the authority which he bad thus thought proper to exercise.- (" Hear'," from Sir George Grey.) That was the language etn ß hiro r oe. i s t )ce i t s u h daloil Q c:u u m ee e n n - ts s u t b o j e which t h j o c n h l y h t e o h h a e d r r l e a fe w r s r e - d s:l c b o m ul l , t i ? b " e - m ( which was used by Rome; and to that l anguage , i t h a d b een it t s h a e i d y t h w e e y a could t a n h o l i t s h s u a b rt m i t m o p i e t r - tu ( m H e h a i r ) hn - p a e n r d i asked by eminent statesmen, " wou ld th e su bj ects o f t h e ma "-( in this kingdom, making out the words of Lord Bacon, that " the Pope had become, by his late challenge, a competitor and rival of the Queen." But three things had been said in relation to this question. First, that the language of those documents had been misunderstood ; sec , ndly, that the power set up was spiritual ; and thirdly, that the change which was made from vicars apostolic to bishops in ordinary, was a change merely for the better management of the spiritual concerns of the Roman Catholics only.-(Hear.) N ow, what did the Ca tholic newspaper press say upon the subject. The documents had been for some time put forward, and instead of their being corrected, if misunderstood, what said the Univers of France, and the Tablet of England, on the subject, both Roman Catholic organs ? The Univers, in speaking of the matter said, that, " as St. Gregory had transferred the ipri macy from London to Canterbury, so Pius the Ninth would transfer the primacy from Canterbury to Westminster, (1, that, henceforth, there was neither a see of York nor a se: a ?! Canterbury ;" and the Tablet, speaking of the matter, id that, " unless every baptized person should submit to the directions of the Papal brief, he would be subject to th Pa u ! Itome had of damnation." - ( Hear, hear, and No, no.) land into spoken and acted. The Pope had divided the dioceses, and placed in each a pastor, and interfering upon to submit under pain of damnation, thusn. Ile could with the prerogative of the Queen of this at the head of her not help saying then that the Noble Lord that this was an Majesty's Government had said correctliy; a It offered to the encroachment on the rights of, and an tiestant people of this Sovereign of this realm, and to the Pro ) Then, as to the country.- (Hear, hear, and No, no.taken was merely second question, that the stepa two-fold character, the spiritual, and that it was not of Secretary had, he thought, alewere called Right Hon. Baronet, the Home should not interfere with it ; it was merely spiritual they l a d s well . as spiritual. If Walpole) but if it touched temporal s c a le id ar t ly he s yhobwadndeal with, it.-(Hear, hear.) Th at then he (fir. was of a twofold character, was clearly every act of the Pope'aook, which showed clearly that it proved by Mr. 'beim as spiritual considerations, Rhea partook of temporal as we a t that itit tow was matt temporalers LONDON, SATURDAY .EVENING. MARCH 22, 1851. it suited'the objects of Rome. One thing was certain, that if there were, indirect power in the acts of the Pope, they could always be turned to temporal account. They had it in his tory that the Roman Catholic nations of Europe had taken care to resist the temporal ;power of the Pope, even though they were ready to bow to him in spiritual matters, and that their own Roman Catholic ancestors had resisted that power; and were the Protestant people of England now, in the face of such acts, to submit to his attempted en croachment ?—(No, no!) It could not be denied, that, by means of vicars- apostolic, which had been so long in operation in this country, the objects of the Roman Catholic religion were amply provided for ; and it had been shown by the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, that the Roman Catholic religion had greatly expanded under that order in the Church in this country. In the reign of James I. there was but one vicar-apostolic in this country ; in that of James the Second there were four; and in 1840, there were eight. He would now take his information as to the objects of the Pope from a Roman Catholic dignitary— Cardinal Wiseman says that the object of the Pope was to apply the canon law to England ; and he (Mr. Walpole) believed that the fundamental object was to give the Pops temporal power in this country, and " dominion over kings and over kingdoms."—(Hear, and No, no.) Mr. Hal lam, in his work on the canon law, had told them that pas toral or spiritual power, meant also temporal power. Now, if he (Mr. Walpole) understo , d the canon law, under " vicars apostolic" the Roman Catholic inhabitants of this country would be governed by the same laws as the other subjects of the Sovereign ; but under " bishops in ordinary," the Roman Catholics would be governed by a law which was not applicable to the rest of the community, and they would be at issue with any other portion of society which would not acknowledge the spiritual power of the Court of Rome.—( No.) He had paid much attention to the subject, and he should be glad to be refuted ; but if not refuted, the question was not merely one of vicars-apostolic and bishops in ordinary, but rather a ques tion whether the Pope's law or the Queen's law was to go vern.—(l-Tear, hear.) Having gone through those three questions, the next question was, whether the people of this country had reason to complain of the step taken by the Pope. He was of opinion that they had, on three grounds; first, because the Papal brief, if acted on, was contrary to the law of nations; secondly, because it was utterly opposed to the law of England; and thirdly, because it was repugnant to and inconsistent with the spirit of their institutions. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to show that no person could, without the consent of the Crown of England, accept of any title in this country, or do anything for any foreign power, unless by the Queen's permission ; and for that reason it was that a certain law was passed, entitled " misprision," which was intended to deal with any attempt to bring into contempt the Queen's Government or the Queen's title. In addition to that law, the statute of pre snanire was passed, and the introduction of " bulls " into this country was prohibited, not because it was appre hended that they would interfere with the Established Church, but because they were found if a nature to absolve British subjects from their allegiance. He admitted that the laws of this country in reference to the admission of bulls into this country, were in a most un satisfactory state, and they ought to be so altered as, while they could be administered with regard to the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church; they should be opposed when they in any way affected the civil rights of the sub ject. (Hear.) His Right Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon asked, the previous evening, if they were going to op pose by legislative measures the Papal aggression ? and his Right Hon. Friend had answered himself, and said that their ancestors were wiser than they were, for they bad not done so. He was astonished when he beard his Right Hon. Friend make this statement. He thought he might have found, in his reading of the history of this country, that the encroachments of the Bishop of Rome were constantly mei with opposition from this country, and this opposition, ex cept in a few instances, was always successful. He knew it was said that Cardinal Wiseman, in his pastoral, had spoken of England again moving round its own orbit of religion ; but England's only orbit was around the Crown as its source and centre.—(Hear.) When St. Augustine came to this country he claimed the obedience of the Catholic people of this country to the Pope • but Desiderius, the part of the people, said " Let the only obedience they owed to the Pope was charity. He ad mitted that subsequently, when the Conqueror ob tained certain advantages from the Pope, that the head of the Church of Rome obtained three things—first, that eccle siastics should be placed beyond secular jurisdiction; se condly, that in all ecclesiastical matters there should be an appeal to Rome ; and, thirdly.ithat the bishops of the Church should pay homage to the Church of Rome. But subse• quentiv these privileges were very much (pi dified, the power of the - Court of Rome, in reference to these three points, g eatly curtailed. It was true that King John, in a dastardly manner, gave up the advantages which the English Church had obtained, and consented to pay a tri bute of one thousand marks to the Pope ; but when Edwaru the Third was called on to pay this tribute, the Parlia ment of that day objected to the payment, and if it were attempted to be enforced they would resist the at tempt to the death.—(Hear, hear.) The consequence was the payment of the tribute was not enforced. Then came the statute of prwniunire which was directed against the temporal power of the Pope, and this showed that the Church of England stood out in contradistinction to the Church of Rome where territorial rights were claimed by the latter Church. So things remained until the Reforma tion, when the power of the Pope in spiritual as well as in other respects completely ceased in this country. So mat ters remained for the next century and a half, when the contest between this country and the Pope was resumed through the bigotry and folly of James ll.—(hear.) And those times were not very dissimilar to the present times. Then, as now, the plea for aggression was conscientious. Then, as now, the Nonconformists were taunted with abiding wi-h the Church but then, as now, the Noncon formists declared they would stand by those wh r would up hold the Protestant religion.—(Hear, hear.) The result was that the contest ended in the political prostration of the Roman Catholics, and it was not until 1791 that they a t lined any political power, and it was not till 1829 that they were entirely emancipated from all political disqualification. Thus Roman Catholics were excluded from power, not on ac count of their religion, but purely upon political grounds; and, if they wished for religious peace, they could only en sure it by abiding by the settlement effected by the Act of 1829. But if that measure was:to be made a means of en croaching on the rights of the Crown—if all the securities which it imposed against the power of Rome were to be taken away—and if Rome was always to be an aggres sive power, they would then say that it was time for the people of England to declare their determination to abide by the faith of their fathers, and to teach the Court of Rome that if it thought it could adopt this course with impunity, it strangely misunderstood the faith and feelings of the Bri tish nation. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") He now came to the ouestion of how they were to deal with this aggression, and here he would observe, in reply to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) that the Government had acted wisely in not attempting in the present state of the law to prosecute those who acted under the Pope's rescript. It was most un wise for the Crown to prosecute where there was the slightest chance of failure. 7 -(Hear, hear.) But if they had done so, they would not have touched the gravamen of the offence, which was the Papal rescript ; and the only way to meet this was by a protest, and by a movement against it, and lie knew of no other way to do this except through them, the represen tatives of the nation in Parliament assembled.—(llear, hear.) After referring to the contrary views entertained by the Right Hon. Member for Wiltshire (dir. Sidney Herbert), and his Right Hon. Friend Sir James Graham, in reference to the measure before the House, although they both con curred in objecting to it, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded to say that, when the Bill went into Committee, he thought it would be clearly shown that the first clause of the Bill did not in any respect infringe upon religious freedom, and that it did nothing more than maintain the supremacy of the Crown, and that it did so in self-defence. He agreed that they should maintain a just toleration, and if the clause was shown to be an infringement of tolera tion, it ought to be thrown out. But there were other prin ciples as important as religious toleration— namely, that the sovereignty of the Crown should be upheld— (Hear, hear)—the purity of our faith should be kept sacred that the law of nations should not be violated by foreign powers, and that the rights and privileges which they enjoyed should be handed down to posterity in all their integrity. Unless they maintained all these things, they would not legislate either for their own conduct or for the benefit of the Church, or for the country generally. But what was this toleration which was spoken of? It was not the toler ation advocated by the Roman Catholics. He would quote his esteemed friend—and he was proud to call him so—Mr. Bowyer, on this subject.— (hear, hear.) His able and Learned Friend justified the conduct of the Pope on the plea of toleration, but he described toleration as " something more thou the equality of civil rights ;" and what was that " something more than the equality of civil rights ?" It clearly meant the establishment of the power claimed by the Pope, and the ultimate ascendancy of that power.—( Hear, near.) near.) That was not the toleration to which thepeople f England would give their assent. What was the toetoleration which the people of England would eonlar byl ( this perfect freedom of re'igious action, dsB.'. (Hear, maxim—" Sic utere tuo ut non hear.) But the Right Honourablaelialim4;ent g " Volenti Graham) capped this maxim by the fob" James y or insult were non fit injuria"—urging that no offered, where there was no intentionintj id therefore the maxim : 1.- do so. But they were willing to submit to the in.iary'l d quoted by the Right Hon. Baronet not applY.—( Hear.) to say a word or two He hoped the H .use would allow not of setting indignation on the Bill. He thought it was defective in in the preamble of the Bill the expressionpact to this aggression which influenced the people (Hear, hear.) He would ilslnhtr:e;i at the constitutional prin. would be fully carried out ciple of the people of this country their creed and country against such encroachmen Roman Pontiff, for such affgres through the emissaries of the anif „ t ly opposed to the autho r ity sion he considered to bem of this country. That wa s of the Queen, and also to t . e h he considered that th e N o bl e L or d one of the ways by male i t c h t e end p e e d op t e o . — act ( i st a is r - , (Lord John Russell) f a ctorily to the wishesfeelingsanudidaetifh o e f make any hear.) He would not on the present occasion allusion whatever to o ther t m h a a t n te t r o s c o o ff n e n r ec i t l ed i with the on that ite Ro man Catholic religion more ag o:T i e n r e a t ti h o y n th of e N th o e hlo ca L n o o r n d, la a w s and th the synodical action guarded e shou d be especia y uch would t d the toleration of s en to aubvert the freedom of and the Constitution of the country. It might the Q'ir n • d as it f requently had, that there was no apprehen be a r g ue en tertained from ' to be the exercise of the canon law, sign that he should b u t to vation the people of entitledthis country to make such a demand from the Noble Lord— ( Ilear)—and for that reason h e would support the second reading of the Bill, believing that it w better than no Bill at all ; and he should also add as that, when the Noble Lord' s Bill had passed, it should be c arried into effect as soon as possible.—( Hear, hear.) For let them depend upon it, if, as they had sometimes done , they passed a law and th en l et it remain unnoticed a nd disregarded, such a course would be most delusive.. It would be worse —it was a mockery of legislation. To use a l a wyer's expression, they would make themselves accesso ries after the fact to whatever offence had been committed. Whatever happened, they must not do that— " We must not make a scarecrow of the law, Setting it up to fear the birds of prey, And let it keep one shape till custom make it Their perch, and not their terror." (Hear, hear.) Of all the courses the Government could pursue, that was the worst. If these events, painful as they were, should teach them no other lesson than that, they would not he without benefit—namely, that the just admi nistration of the law was not less important than the law itself; nay, further, that the administration of the law would be fruitless and unavailing of itself it it was still to be ac companied by a course of policy which encouraged the offence it was meant to prohibit. There was only one sub ject which lie wished further to notice. They had heard much about religious persecution, as if it were persecution to defend themselves and repel a hostile invasion. They had heard much about the duty of preserving religious peace ; but religious peace could not be preserved unless both par ties withdrew their forces, and prepared to stand on neutral ground. It was not by them religious peace had been violated. They could never forget by whom and how it was it had been assailed. They must not, under the plea of conscience, bring into this country rules by which the inhabitants would be subjected to foreign law and juris diction. They mat not attempt to shako their allegiance, which ought to be one and undivided. He cared not in what Church it was admitted, but he would not admit that the saee-dotal authority should be placed before the tempo: lel, still less the pontifical authority abov e the regal. It they did that, they wou l d put in peril t o e sovereignty of their Queen, the freedom of their Church, and the integrity of their constitution. He thought that the time was come ht when the Queen, imitating her illustrious predecessor, might call upon the House, as she had already done in the Spee from the Throne, to vindicate her authority. In such a case, with truth, with honour , and w ith j ustice on their side, he was sure she might appeal to their obedience and loyalty, and as they were a free people, they should have a free Queen. - (Loud cheering.) Mr. ROEBUCK could understand what was meant by a free people, but he did not understand what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant by a free Queen —what was till. relative position of those two powers. The people of he country were a great people— among the foremost of world; they were hardly equalled , certai nl y not surpaseel sad, by any nation on the earth. They had a S overei g n wh eel, all hearts obeyed, before whom they were pr e p ared to kn and for whom they were ready to die. Was not she, then , ~ free Queen? That was one side of the question. What bao they on the other? A foreign Prince without power, without an acre of lend he could call his own what ever power he had was that of moral influence. How could they deal with that influence by Act of Parlia ment ? Let them not talk to him, then, of a free Quee l p with such power at her back as this country possess.e being overborne by an almost wandering poor old in who came to this country, if he came at all, clothed on l y unreal attributes. What had they to fear? He wolT d i deal with the question only as a political ne. He wq b )u e not roll himself in the theological mire in which others a e _ flung themselves; he wanted to raise himself and thews et/ e ject to dry land, whereon to have some rational __ went. The supremacy that he was prepared to maintain was he the supremacy of Parliam-nt, and if that were assail was quite ready to deal with it. But how did the CO of the Pope affect the interests of England ? He denied 1e..! it did. Besides, they must remember that t depositoryrn‘ Catholic religion in former times was the great 1 the of learning, and that its despotism was founded power which the learning of the priests gave t ‘ h v ea n ignorant and rule feudal nobles and people. was discovered, it extended learning among the rria ,9 . 0 : , .. 2 _ 1 .: d then the influence of the priests failed. At present, h aided by the printing-press, by science, and they need net be afraid of the Roman Catholic rediee! l e to Let him ask the Noble Lord what was it he preten 0 _ be afraid of ? He feared encroachment on the pert t the Roman Catholics. In what way ? There had 5 b h ee had (o)pvgnrttithi alteration from vicars- at). stoic to bishops, and b then n oteweeil;tohne. been told by the Solicitor General there had bell any' introduction of the canon-law. Now, be asked, d ui b u body believe that canon law bad been introduce canon Papal rescript ? And what then was the meaning ot c"" law? That the Roman Catholics were rules which their consciences submitted to. was called canon law. It was not enforced whichtbele ple of of law. It was no more than a moral code, the Roman Catholic religion obeyed.--al ean) .f - terms. that the canon law was introduced, was an abuse - e h i T v : ars c whetou certain r ts goveTrnheadt Ile They called that "law," which was in fact " custom •" in admitted that the Pope had power; but he had no p had their courts of law.—(Hear, hear.) Then, what sleep the the Pope done? The Pope who had the power thronuog. of vicars apostolic of governing wholly the Roman Cst hes pointed T o P s s a y then England, now said ]the the bishops should be aPP lea d of the clergy ;so that y had election introdeced ins . , wag direct nomination by the Pope.—(Hear.) But then u said there was synodal action ? W action? a l'es of He had seen the Wesleyan assemblies—and the assenibacitio. other Protestant Dissenters. That was syn odal reat —(Hear, hear.) But then he was told there was e a g r . - bat was the difference between the Roman Catholics and th y senters ; that the former hat at their head a foreign P But then they knew that in the Catholic religion theere.shllo_uledr be an episcopal body—that eiscopal bod derivde from the r'ope ; but in doing so he was not cons ider a 5 " temporal prince—he was but a bishop, as the bead of ti l e , Roman Catholic Church. - (Hear.) Then it had been o‘ s !ir e there would be Papal interference with the lo y alty„, a l e l e " Roman Catholics. He could not help feeling thatt 3 assertion was an unworthy attack on the Rom an In hoee• this s (Cheers from the Roman Catholic Mem bers.) ej e country the Roman Catholics had always borne wit h to c alm' and with meekness their disabilities. — ( He ar.) d n o 1829 there had been no more loyal, no more bumble, an mor • docile people than the Roman Catholics of Englan u a . a (Hear.) The Roman Catholics of England did not g emancipation.—(llear. ) It was gained by the Irishedpeirby - (Cheers from the Irish Members.) They g, ai r n r ifl e e the terrifying the Government.—( Cheers.) They , He conqueror, as he had been called, in a hundred battles. Cs. said he could not govern the country if the 11°n e bad tholics were not emancipated. Sir Robert peel, v/"‘" -- e opposed emancipation up to 1829, proposed it at that Wet because he said it was impossible country it they persisted in maintaining the q , a"awsci. (Hear, hear.) And now he asked the oble L0.,6 after its for them to govern n. did he believe he could govern the country, he believe that enjoying so many years of liberty—did t the Catholics of Ireland could be induced to remain;„"" with such a Bill as this ?—(Cheers.) Did the No cr-, Cheers believe he could enforce his Bill without coercion ?--( s e . Why the Noble Lord's Bill was a mere brutum fulmen—it !L e hostile without the capacity to attack—it was insult Iv'', ut the power of injury —(Cheers from the Irish Member, The Noble Lord's Government depended for sup Pert °lt L e Irish Friends, and what made the weakness of the Noble Loer now?—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) Had not "' W . Noble Lord by this time discovered the great mistake that he had made ? lid they not think that the Noble Lord b lieved it to be unwise in him to have departed trom the evil" nary rule which should have governed his conduct as Priln. Minister of the country, when he entered into discussion in a public newspaper ?—(flear. ) The Noble Lord from th e hour that he penned that fatal letter felt the necesearY consEquences of that most imprudent proceeding.—a lear ,! hear.) The Noble Lord had done that which was 1 10 " only useless, but destructive to his administration. — ( lles e r : hear.) All the business of the country was delayed; efere,„ - thing connected with the interests of England Was abeyance ; the whole Government was paralysed because the Irish Members were no longer the friends of the Noble Lord Cheers. ) Never was there such evidence of their powe r ' and no doubt they would take advantage of it (Cheers fro m the Irish M embers) for in the balance of the parties, an d that balance was almost complete. the preponderating power was in their hands, and nobody felt that more deeply tinel the Noble Lord.—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) Who' but this, he asked, made their country, at that moment" a spectacle for nations?—(Heir, hear.) On that (the Op poesition) side of the House they were unable to fort., a Government.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord himself was only a Prime Minister upon sufferance. —(Cheers from the Irish Members.) The: Noble Lord was taken becaus tit he (the Opposition) dare not form a Ministry, and they di nc‘ dare because they lied not a majority.—(Cheers.) What WI it, then, that so shackled the Noble Lord? Why , it w° h— own most unwise, most unstatesmanlike conduct.—( B i ll Noblewhich was this, the greatest of all blunders —namely, nelie which falsified the whole life of the Noble Lord. the c . / Lord had gained power by fighting the battle of the Dissenter! —the party of the Noble Lord, by fighting the battle b e; the Roman Catholics from 1800 to 1829, had gained front admiration of the world. And now what did they hear ft'? the Noble Lord? an argument which was from the beg'''. ning to the end an argument against the Bill of 1829 (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had taken a retrograde stet); and he would find that in the attempt to do so, like uln a _ others who had made a similar attempt, that in the enr be your to stop the onward progress of mankind, he already destroyed.— destroyed.— (Hear, hear.) It was quite clear he was re alr ' e oble destroyed.—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) r e•- a . ,, l ' 4 ere .) Lord was not the First Minister of the Crown. — (L'" e vii The Noble Lord's Administration was no Administratio _ (Cheers.) The Noble Lord's Government had no powerib; could do nothing for or against his own opinions ; in vi d as ev es eer body understood that the moment this discussion Near.) the Noble Lord's Administration was at an en"• ques t a few days after this question was over, some raniroua ions affecting the policy of this country would ne,,,h? The forward, and what then would be the conseeale n i Thr e need Noble Lord had offended all his friends. He hat' ° all his liberal friends in En gland , w h o had believedure bedttl!t the cause of civil and reli gious liberty w ould be _ neath his banner; and to whom, then, was the Noble , to look for support , or by whom wou ld his mrjoritl.7 made? He never saw a greater contrast than in the recept3°. the other evening by the House of the Ri g ht Hon. Barone'. the Metnb - r for Ripon and the Noble Lord, when the 00e had concluded and the other rose to addroas the Hous e ' The cheers that greeted the Right Hon. Gentlemen were Ye' hement, even fierce and unan imous; they were, too, hear t, ' c h e ers, and they were from that (thus Ministerial) side of the House. The Noble Lord had attempted to answer that speech, and his only supporters were on that (the Opposition) side of the House. And what cheers were they ?—damP in g and annihilating to the spirit of the Noble Lord. That was a most marvellous contrast , and the Noble Lord fe lt it •-•" (Hear, bear)—that his support had been gained from his ponents, and that his friends were no longer his fries He looked upon the Bill as the greatest calamity that could 1829 all the bitter animosities of l happen in this country. He had hoped Bill of away. It was at such a time that re i e gl a o r n di w na nw l uil a tdl e h 'i b se tah m veaanPats: ..a k that most imprudent step; and now the Noble L o rd hie. raised up a spirit which would not be quelled, and th% outcry had continued, and - would find those miserable feelings continue long aft er t then the last act o ioue Lord's public life would be in opposition to h i s pro' ho career.—(Hear, hear.) Now an attempt to Pot do e w e n ee t ee hierarchy in Ireland would fail.—(Hear, hear.) was told there ought to be a distinction betwe ee en c r but ill and Ireland. In Ireland there were nearly B,o oo, '" eu lope England the Catholics were few. If there were dauger i ou, a land, and in England there was none, in carrYlroceed" prosecution, then it was merely spite and bigotrkomw he said f the Noble ing against the Roman Catholics in Engla nd h . would effect it would be impossible to make any the one without affecting the ()1at.:071 He be lle would not detain the House rove wholly inefficient. lieved that the Bill in itself would prove whollY would never be He believed that if the Bill became law it derstanding injurious; and the Roman Catholic Members, understanding Minieters 11e.ar, hear.) the power that they had, would use it to coerce t but then he said that, in spite of all the efforts of w .,„„ Lord and his supporters, and in spite of all their t. 1 ) 1 " 9 ” their power would fail, and their Ministry .fall.—( Ilogr a feW The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt desirous to „,, l, sa e observations on the subject of the debate and the (3 l3 :B con' he pledged the House that in doing so he should b Noble the rise-ase b 1 he possibly could. With the observation ne t House the Honourable Member for Midhurst, and assenteed io:;70 the almost universal voice on that side of wee no, namely, that in the present attempt at legislation It e obg hte the wish or intention, in any respect whatever, 11 l'ritual ac est or most remote degree. to interfere with the eP t l hb u a lion or consaientious feelings of any Reagan looked tlP.a that country, he entirely agreed. They fee lings the purely spiritual actions and consci enti°u t s h e of that, as of every other class °fa matter of munity, as sacred principles, but it was m easure. the utmost importance to consider whether the nession adopted by the Pope—the act, as t was called, of ; I g leattell, —had not some temporal action, some influenc e 1 wou ld other than spiritual, which might have, and whie" have, a prejudical effect ou the temporal liberties of V,e 1 .0 1, classes in this country, and if they found that it had 7_ es i action and such influence, it was the iuty of the Goverarn...... to interpose to prevent that effect from taking plec e , h e (Hear, hear.) The only question, then, was whether S meausure proposed would be sufficient to repel and P 1 . 7 0, Meln her that aggression. It would be his aim to show that the PI visions of the Bill were amply effective. The Hon. t th e for Sheffield, in the course of his speech, said tba,, he canon law did not exist in this country, and that it wouleowe idle to suppose that the Pope would introduce it.,.. ? nt l e , with all respect for the Honourable and Learned G en t he man, he was much mistaken —he did not understan d operation—and he (th e Attorney-General) would endavouee; to explain the mode in which the canon law would into operation in thi s countr y , in accordance with the.Pt vision of the P a p al rescript. Th e canon le c :; r i e a was universally adm itted, could on l y be t 914 into effect by bishops of territorial titles. He need 1 1 C , no g that there may be bisho p s in the C atholic Church. bishops of territorial districts. There was a distinction _..e tween bishops exercising ecclesiastical functions. en bi s hops of territorial districts, and it was , a s he bad ifTsij stated, by the latter that the canon law cou ld be Pt 11( )t 114