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

TY. „ A dose ' THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 21, 1851. ar ch was the law as laid clown in their authorities. He "aid then briefly call their attention to the oath taken by car dinals. It wa s t o the following effect :- " I promise and • ear from this time forward and as long as I shall live to f• a ithful and obedient to the bishopric of St. Peter , t r his eve lees s the Pope, the Head of the Catholic Church, and t e w ss atl will fight for (the word used was propugnor), endea issis and stand fo r th for him, against all others, with all my t i l ength and power." Could a man after taking that oath w " the oath of allegience to the Queen?— ( Hear.) What th ai the rule in making a cardinal. "That man or boy (for ey 80 MetfineS, too, made boys cardinals) having been made eardinal, from that moment ceased to be under the contro l of a le father." Now it was not enough for the Pope to have specked our constitution by sending that ca-dinal, who was : t ern to fi g ht ir him against all others, and eight other wide all to this country ; but he should presume also to set ref " ell the bishoprics in England. The Hon. Member here tr erred to and read a couple of extracts from the Papal re tolPt in reference to the old existing arrangements and cus of this country, which the new bishops were to assist . modelling anew. Indeed he (Mr. Drummond) had e4eaver seen one of those pastoral letters which did n t I ... t aia a falsehood in itself.—( Laughter.) It was as ti f ed in a pastoral letter n Ireland the other day q B L the see of Canterbury had been established by Pope le r ss e g°rY• Now, any one who took the trouble to read the established Bede, might ind that it was the King who had that see ; and, indeed, there was no evidence of sot ePe having attempted to do anything of himself in this e e : t rY without the sanction and interference of the civil a r. But they bad been told by the Papal organ (the th riet newspapeis we believe), that all their legislation upon br , 4 t subject would be null and void, because it w as op tiled to the *doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. (The Member here read an extract from the journal in qu-s -e,,,,y2. That was the arrogant tone assumed by their oppo- Cr He would, however, next pass to another class, the 2 110 f utilitarians, who asked bow the matter would touch 1 1 l e r, Pockets. These gentlemen said they wished to know pr ote d le! any persons, or any class, were demanding t : heir bi4loh. But did the negro slave ask for . protection ? e fri-ndless child ask for protection? Did the poor eith:_ho was locked up in a convent, where she might be et k s_e starved or flogged into acquiescence with the views T t r'r superiors, ask for protection ? (Cries of " Oh, oh.") ti lts height cry " Oh, oh," but he would tell them tha t see n • sal ts unnenes were either prisons or brothels , they mi g ht their c h o i ce . a rdi be Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he rose to t - " Hear, hear," from the Roman Catholic Members.) had but that moment entered the House, and he had t i ti t trel the H o n. Member for Surrey—unless he had mistaken e s "ords -he had heard him say that a nunnery was either jelson or a brothel. He asked the Speaker whether it was bierier for any Hon• Member to state that those nunneries a t i s lr hich resided ladies - (Hear, hear) -who devoted them the 'es to the service of God, who endeavoured to attain to re e Perfection of all evangelical precepts—whether it was in ,04!! for any Member of that House to refer to them in terms ..4 1 1sgraceful?— aims, hear.) lize SPEAKER said that in answer to the question of the 1:1 0 - "te Earl be should say that nothing had fallen from the sL I • Member for Surrey which was inconsistent with the 4 sorn of debate allowed to Members of that House. tO t 8 rs GRATTAN rose and hastily uttered a few words i t , did not reach us. lt s r. MOORE said he would suggest to the Hon. Member ;_s.the ob serva ti o ns in which he was indulging were calcu - C 75 to lead to retor and retaliation, and that it would not , Q 3 opinion, be consistent with the dignity of the House a s . the Hon. Member should indulge in such language. i k , p l'. DRUMMOND said he was obliged to any Hon. Mem iteks?tn whom he received any merited correction. But he himself been interrupted in his argument by the excla prZ)fts of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would, however , 'ed, and then they would see what was that evangelical e ttiosi to which the Roman Catholic Church was advanc eofi The Noble Earl (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) had ti es th th em on a former occasion that he had presented a peti- to e Papal See for the very thing that bad lately been 81 that the Pope in sending over Cardinal Wiseman h o WA establishing a Roman Catholic hierarchy, had done Sely what the Romal Catholics in this country had t teed him to do. Now he (Mr. Drummond) bad ne ver h iut that petition, but as the Noble Earl had said that it ts b een presented he could have no doubt of th e truth 11 4 S'e statement. But he said that that was directly in thaeth of another petition which bad been presented to lie s fePal Court by other Roman Catholics. He held in e tt ;aod a petition, signed by Lord Petre and a number of (114 respectable Roman . Catholic gentlemen, in which 114 4 ueprecated the adoptisn of any scheme which would missionaries of the religious orders of the liege of voting at the election of vicars apostolic. o. ti . sat was the very result which would follow from the 114Pa:tit of the scheme which had just been introduced into l e , country. Under that scheme the great mass of the ti att Catholic clergy would be in a worse position than to . t c7 which they had previously opied, and would be Illththout redress against the u oppression of their Without ; for they might at any moment be dismissed from li s 4 l rings by these bishops without any reason being as peed for their dismissal. They were, however, generally 11i t I t s who had no other means of gaining a livelihood, so iirkplitgerydwaiol;ild be _dependent on the will of their bishops bread. He held in his hand a letter written :;Roman Catholic priest, a friend of his, and published ts led Jeers ago, in which that reverend gentleman depre %to, ,any attempt to increase the powers of the vicars "te "e by converting them into bishops in the manner that iti erel eeently been adopted. That showed that that was not b os s! chap a question of title, and that it was not true that the bos s ! change did not trench on the rights of the great lil l e h of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity. He held in tlet ed and a letter from a Roman Catholic in Rome, and te ui this very year in which the writer stated that a brief kt g i be irig prepared ' to force on the Roman Catholics of fe eni and the canon law of Rome, which was very different iti s h the canon law of this country, inasmuch as it made "et,* absolute masters of all Church temporalities, such stittscltlests and benefices. The writer added that the g reat !tee' of the creation of the new mock hierarchy was t he in ction of that canon law, which would by that means e so lfablished for the first time in this country. He had the 'etbrs from Roman Catholic clergymen den ouncin g stvetterript to render them wholly dependent on t he will lt s 'eir bishops. (The Hon. Member here read some ex sps from those letters.) Now he would say that if no ti ss: else would stand up for those poor men, he had a 1 1 / 4 7; to d o so.—(L a u g ht e r from the Roman Catholic Mem tt,9 Dr. Unattiorne had asked whether information of thssdescription was communicated by Roman Catholic aigY hatn i mei n full made ne t with the Church ; but he knew Ls tf they madhemse themselves k nown they would at once tt:elarived of their livings. Dr. Wiseman had trea t ed t h e e it t s ge as one which would not affect the position of Roman t s ktolics in this country. But he (Mr. Drummond) would t o 7anythieg could be intended more dieeCtly to deceive Sste''' e '7 r. utnen Catholic laity than ne the pamphlet of Dr. Wises t Why, D Wiseman kw that it was directly calcu et t t t o mislead the Roman Catholic laity. Let them look the 6 Pamphlet of Lord Shrewsbury, which had " let by c at out of the bag." Dr. O'Finnan had been dismiss ed i rk order from Rome from the bishopric of Killala, f r llie t w shee reason than that he had appealed to British law— ts4e had appealed to the Court of Queens Bench year 1837 ; and Lord Shrewsbury, in his letter APHale, said :—" Dr. O'Finnan, one of your S it ie suffragans, was dispossessed of the d io c ese of 4 4, 11 ,, , and another thurst into his place, as the succ essful Peli es °l an intrigue in Rome." The pretensio ns and the S,.°l the Papal See had remained at all t imes un !_llesa4'es's• He had at that moment extracts from t he writ no less than 21 Popes—(A laugh) — he d id not mean A re ad est e th em to the House —extending from the year 731 *et a i `a very recent period, all asserting that the Popes theords paramount in things temporal as well as in things th, Hear, hear.) There was not a doctrine of 1 40" 9 nlan Catholic Church for which he could find "ger One Pope said that e s , or more unbroken testimony. ass ell denied that be was lord over temporal matters :1t ! ..." as over spiritual, were " wild beasts"—(Hear , vf $' and laughter)—were " were the " body tlite at "art:'—were "members of the devil and of Anti- Zat * ' "• ,(Renewed cries of "Hear, hear," and laughter.) It `tie s we'l known, however, that Popes had deposed Sovereign gis ee s'ee, and had absolved their subjects from their elle qsest• Seven councils had given decisions in favour of the e lst ir a o L f the Popes to supreme temporal power. But he 4"cl he told claim had been disputed. Yes; but , i st ss ;:: . _heen . dispnted . ? They had heard . the index expur ne ?", Which contained a list of all brooks condemed by a Pal See. The writings of none of these Popes had diep t ,i t t into the index expurgatorius, whila all the writings il2 g their claim to temporal power, which were prin e t 9 the productions of Frenchmen , had been put into it. S t It would be idle to deny that the Popes claimed a po ral superiority over Christendom just as much as they Vey( s v e.r what was called St. Peter's patrimony. Dr. 'N s 's In his letter to Lord Liverpool, made use of the foi l:41"e lang ua ge ;as" It is quite obvious that these claims net their origin in the Gospel, or in the doctrines of R onan s ,_ an Catholic Church, but in the state of society 1 ; "oe zeal and the mistaken ambition of Popes, directed s ln satiable avarice, pride, and thirst for power." But ~forw l aina had, nevertheless, been put forward and en fra' t • Pope B o niface, writing to Philip le Bel of 4 te te e. after sending him m an y g reeti ngs , said_ '4.4" s wish you to know that you are subordinate to u s , b o th Il tPoral and spiritual concerns ; and Philip wrote back 12 0 11 "S " Philip, by the grace of God, to Boniface, I ler e ri E as. Pope , little or no greeting — ( A lau g h)— y ou are te st by i nformed that in temporal concer ns we are not sub- Aa teat to you" Wh a t were the means by which the Ves had c arr i e d ou t t h e i r d oc t r ines upon that subj e c t? e.: 4 3', by excommunication and by a denial of the sa e,enents. Now, the sacraments had been given as instru- Z ' ts of grace to the l a ity, b u t pr i es t s h a d taken them as ei, cl ritments of persecution and villany. One of the things % s at that Bill to be most regretted was, that it had prevented ef,i hurltoman Catholic laity from rebelling against the Syn od 4 e k r . POWER—No such thing. rea ri r DRUMMOND—Why, the Hon. and Learned Gentle "), 'fle Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) had told them NI The Roman Catholic divines taught that all who lte s ,N for their own spiritual advancement should yield an teg l eit obedience to their spiritual superiors wherever they la 4 t be. I n a we ll-k now n work they were required to ~s Ai me "as a stick in the hands of a man who walked 1 1 1.111 4 1 t. and as dead bodies, perfectly passionless." In an eN. Passage it was stated that nothing could involve an ob et l eo t • es _ to sin unless a superior commanded it in the name 114' 4 r Lord Jesus Christ, or in virtue of holy obedience.— t ioe hear.) Dr. Wiseman had lately published an edi. ita the' , Exercises" of Loyola. In the preface to that sverioe said, " In the Roman Catholic Church no one is st s i i .t_oseed to trust himself in spiritual matters ; the So tes s „,.‘", Pontiff hims-lf is obliged to trust to others in what 'ns his own soul." Now number 13 of those exercises 41 4 , as fellows :—" That we may in all things attain truth, ~V re may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it as iss le principle that what we see white we must believe to tli st "" if the Church so commands it."—(Hear, hear.) 4 re gh as th e evangelical holiness which Cardinal Wiseman I t s ; ta e , t ,' Why those men appeared like Thugs. The Thugs Zee sk - " t ted murder as an act of worship ; and those men told Med an act of worship. There were plenty of liars in the soip o ; but in that case they had men pretending to be wor hiCstre '.f God ready for the sake of that worship to say that h as ,S,was black.—(Hear.)* Talk of degradation ! Where 1 ;4 i'e n re any negro slave in such a "state of degradation as 7_ l lte.„Arnitlst all the horrors of the slave trade the negro was to express truly his opinion of the sugar which he e "rg e • - s * Pope said that an " honest man was the noblest work The -,‘";" and men of every sect ought to disdain to tell a lie. see - Cntry was indignant upon that subject. But some nri,, s lembers had stated most unwisely—and no one more 'otier'Y than the Hon. Member for Ayrshire—that the SO did not care about the matter. ts kr • , I3 SWALD—I beg pardon, I never said so.— (Hear.) Nat VRIJNImO continued—Why it had been sai l l e2ei t souse over and over again that the people had ee . n the to the agitation of that question, and that they did ;oit are about it. He was sorry they had been exc . ted in aY they had been.—(Laughter, and derisive cries of Itte, ar, hear," from the Roman Catholic Members.) He (k • 4 e o trader in Conciliation Hall nor in monster meetings. ,P,rie ei n i ewed laughter from the same Members.) Both in '414 te and in practice he hated their Whig doctrines and The p R adical performances.. - (Continued laugher.) Whe uilrwr Members willed it or not, he would state the tr uth, " 44 5 r think that if they attempted to rule this country by their mandate from the Flaminian-gate, no one was to be ' allowed to challenge their anthority ? (Hear, hear.) The Protestant Members of that House had not sworn yet to obey 1 that mandate, although Hon. Gentlemen opposite had done so.—(Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh.") 'the people were at present willing to abide by the decision of the leaders of the parties to which they looked up, and to abide by the decision of that House. But it those leaders were to throw them over, if the House were to refuse to give them sufficient protection, they would take the law into their own hands ; and the only way to preserve the public peace would be to give them a Bill with adequate powers for ensuring the objects they had in view. Of course when the nation was excite —(Laughter, and cries of Hear," in a very loud and jeering tone from a few of the Rernan Catholic Members)—when the people were excited. men were influenced by various motives; but if there was any one feeling - in which the peoplee were more unanimous than in, any other, it was in an honest John Bull hatred of imposture—(Wear, bear)—and of impostures and in pity for their dupes.— (Derisive cheers from the Roman Cotholic Members.) Were they going to have in this coun try cargoes of blinking statues, of bleeding pictures of liqui fying blood, of Virgin Mary's milk ?--(Lciu3 cries of " Hear, hear," from the same Members.) Mr. OTLAIIERTY rose to order. He was not a very ex perienced Member of that House ; but he respectfully an pealed to the English House of Csturnons—to a body which he had always understood to be composed of men of gentle manly feeling —of men who would not permit any portion of the Members of that House - (Loud cries of " Hear, hear") — or any portion of her Majesty's subjects, professing no matter what creed they might conscientiously believe to be right— who would not permit them to be wantonly insulted; and he did hope that even at that moment there would be some ex pres ion of feeling with reap ct to the language which had been held by the Hon. Gentleman whom he called to order. —(1-lear.) He believed that Gentleman's language was worthy of his tastes as well as his judgment. 'Sir G. GREY here rose, but immediately gave way to other Members who seemed eager to address the Hoese. Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved the adjournment of the House. Mr. P. HOWARD seconded the motion.—(Crass of " Chair" and " Order.") The SPEAKER said Let me intreat of Hon. Members not to interrupt the regular course of the debate. But at the same time I do hope, that on a question of so much delicacy as this, upon a matter which relates to the religion of a por tion of her Majesty's subjects, Hon. Members will abstain from all expressions of an offensive character. (Cheers.) Mr. DRUMMOND again rose, but was for a moment in terrupted by An HoN. MEMBER on the benches occupied by the Ro man Catholic party, who exclaimed—" We are not here to be insulted. Mr. DRUMMOND then proceeded to say, that an Hon. Member had last night pointed out to them the fact that Car dinal Wiseman had specially selected—The Hon. Gentleman had not concluded the sentence, when Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the lion. Member for Sur rey, having been reprimanded, ought in common decency to apologise. - (Oh, oh ) The Q , PEAKER said—The Honourable Gentleman is him self g•dlty of a breach of order. I did not call the Honour abte Member for Surrey to order, nor did I venture to repri mana him. I only took the liberty of expressing a hope that the Honourable Member, in the course of a debate so delicate, and so exciting as the present, would abstain from using expressions likely to cause irritation.—(Hear.) Mr. MOORE rose to order—(Cries of "Order" and " Chair.")—The expressions used by the Hon. Member for Surrey were not merely disrespectful to the religious feelings of some Members of that House, but would be out of order in any Christian assembly.—(Great confusion,) The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman is clearly out of order. Mr. GRATTAN-1 am an old Member of the House, and I call the Hon. Member for Surrey to order in consequence of the improper expressions he has used. I have a right— and I know it has been done—to move that his words be taken down. I ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Go. vernment, and the older Members of the House, if I am not in order, and if your predecessors, Sir, have not taken that course? Mr. DRUMMOND rose to speak, but the uproar was so great that he resumed his seat. Mr. GRATTAN again insisted that he had a right to have the words taken down. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman is clearly mistaken in his view of the rule. The Hon. Member for Surrey is entitled by the rules of debate to use any expressions he pleases, prov ded he u , ,es none personally offensive to any H n Member or one disrespectful to the House. All that I said was by way of caution, and not as a reprimand. Mr. J. O'CO eNELL again rose and insisted on his right to address the House amidst the greatest confusion. The SP EAK ER I must call on Hon. Members to support me.—(Loud and protracted cheers, which lasted several seconds.) I have already stated that the Hon. Member for Surrey was not out of order, and I beg now that we may pro ceed with the debate.—(Renewed cheers ) Mr. DRUMMO vti said—l was not out of order, and I was not reprimanded; but I was provoked by repeate I and offen sive interruptions to say the things which, in the heat of argument, escaped my lips. I have not been reprimanded, and I do not in substance retract one word, but I say that, if I have given offence, whether merited or unmerited, to any individual, I humbly beg his pardon.—(Hear, hear.) Now I will go to another subject. Cardinal Wiseman has told you that his model and example is Thomas a Becket, in whose footsteps he would tread. The fate of Thomas a Becket (continued the lion. Member), cruel and unjust as it was, was only the end of a long series of disputes, the object of all which was to do what is now attempted—namely, to create a hierarchy and establish a system which should ex empt the priesthood from the control of the temporal power. The Protestantism of England had been characterised as de mrniacal. (Oh, oh.) Oh ! they did not like to heart re torts: but he asked seinper ego auditor tantum. nun quam reponam ? (A laugh) His belief was that this Bill, as far as Ireland was concerned, was manifestly unjust and uncalled for; but he thought they must pass a law to prohibit car dinals from living in this country.—(Hear, hear.) They must pass a law to mike all deeds done under this canon law null and void de facto. They must enact a law, as to convents and monasteries, similar to that existing in Bava ria, and not permit vows to be taken; and he would extend the Mortmain Acts, so as not to allow any dying man to be robbed, whatever might be his seet.---(Hear, hear.) In ad dition to this, his belief was that they had arrived at a state of things not only with regard to the Roman Catholics. but also with regard to the Churches of England and Scotland and all similar bodies, in which they could go on no longer. There was a book which some of them were not allowed to read, and that book contained several letters addressed to laymen, and two letters addressed to two bishops. In the letters to the laymen noth.ng was said about the love of money, but in the letters to those two bishops it was declared that the love of money was the root of all evil. It was not necessary that they should imitate all that their fathers had dine, but they should do their duty in their generation, as their fathers had done in theirs. He did not deny that the support of religi n by the State might at the commencement have been useful; he did not deny that monkery might also have been useful; but it was his firm conviction that these institutions had come to an end, and that their utility had ceased, and that it would be impossible to continue them. It was the tendency of priests of every sect to domineer over the people, and he would conclude, in the language of Cardinal Bembo, when he said be mixed himself up with the concert a of priests with great reluc tance, for he generally found them guilty of all human wickedness, covered with a diabolical hypocrisy. The SPEAKER. having left the chair nor a few minutes, the House presented a scene of great excitement, Hon. Members assembling together in greups and engaging in earnest conversation. Mr. H. Grattan crossed the House, and addressed a few words to Mr. Drummond. accompanied by very animated gesticulations, and retired to his seat, fol lowed by that Hon. Member, and Mr. H. Grattan was after wards surrounded by a large number of Irish Members, with whom he was engaged in conversation when the Speaker re turned. The Speaker having returned, order was restored, and Sir James Granam, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Moore rose to ad dress the Houee. Sir J. GR eHAM having been called upon by the Speaker, proceeded to say—l am glad, Sir, a short pause has taken place in our proceedings, and I hope nothing will tall from me that will tend to disturb the gravity of this debate, and the calmness with which the great subject now before us ought to be discussed.—(Hear, hear.) I bend, Sir, implicitly to your decision in every matter of order. I did not think it was possible, until within the past half-hour, that any would tare aggravated,my sorrow on account of the revival of this painful discussion, in which the subject of re ligion is involved; but I must say, that what has just oc cursed has further excited my most extreme regret.— (Hear, hear.) I have seen a gentleman—an accomplished gentleman and a scholar—so much heated by the subject that he was disc ussin g , as entirely to forget what was due to the feelings of a large body of gentlemen sitting iu this e t e h r a , t h f e e a l l r . fr ) o mI him, not sully my lips .words—H House on terms of wi tphe repeatingr fect equa t l i h t e y i individually and still less Members shall this House, in reference to t both with respect indivit h lu e a r ll to Hon. of I think of repeating an allusion he has made to the female ( hei e r God, according to their f relatives of those gentlemen— Ch ere)—who have devoted themselves to the se rvice of t House may on this occasion but if Roman Catholic have been observed to the letter, consciences, in lives of se clusion and in lives o chastity.— (Cheers.) The orders o f the tane —(Hear hear. ) Asser f scenes like this are to be repea ted?- Members are to sit here and to take part in our debates, how are are the rules end orders of the House to be mami. tions of the kind that have been made, sad the tone and must not be repeated, manner in which they have been made, if the freedom of debate and the order or rules of the House are any longer to be maintained. (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member has said that he would enlarge the scope of this debate, and he has treated us to a subject entirely of a reli gious kind. I shall venture also to enlarge the scope of the debate, but I am happy to say I shall treat it as a political question.—( that I should ill discharge my duty, considering the Hear, hear.) At the same tim e, Sir, I think immense extent of field now op by those p reliminary en on the qu estion before us, if I detained You any longer re marks, and I shall proceed at once to enter into the subject under discussion. --(Hear, hear.) Having , in a s h o rt manner, addressed th e H ouse on a former occas ion with re f er ence to; this subject, I s h all, i n what I Man to ad dress to y ou, repeat two admissions I made on a former oc casion. lam glad to make th em , as they w ill t e nd to clear the ground I intend to occupy. In th e fi rs t place, I said , what I now repeat, that I do think that the language used by the Pope in this rescript. and by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral letter, was arrogant in the extreme, and needlessly offensive to the feelings of the great Protestant community of this country.—(Cheers.) And I shall go further, an d make this second admission , that I think it was extremely difficult for the servants of the Crown to have passed by that offence, which had deeply wounded the Protestant feeling of a large body of the community of Great Britain, in silence and con tempt.— (Hear.) And Ido think it might have been neces sary, and probably was necessary, in some authoritative way, to re-assert those g reat Protestant p ri nciples which were fixed at the Reformation—which were vine Act dica of Settle went ttlhe- R m e e T n o t l , u a t n i o d n —w which e re wererat ratified o fi n r confirmed me morable occasionsd by the by the solemn co m p acts which were entered in to , first on the union of Scotland with En g land, and subse quently on the union Britain.—(Hear.)igthuesGtihrehatthat,iasd h raisey I the Hon. will not n Member for the Un iversit y of Oxford, as to th e various enter o f Ir i e h la to nd th w e modes by is which th • might be done. I will not now discuss whether it was possible to issne a royal proclamation, as serting strongly the supremacy of the Sovereign relative to all temporal matters • an d also her spiritual supremacy as acknowledged by the members of the Church of England, and as established by its rules, and generally appealing t her subjects to maintain the principles to which I have alluded, as having been settled at the Reformation, at the Revolution, and by the Act of Settlement.—(Hear.) I will not, either, discuss whether it might be p ossibl e t o adopt resolutions by the two Houses of Parliament, to be embodied in an address, and sent up by the two Houses to the foot of the Throne, or discuss the third suggestion which the Hon. Gentleman made, that the offence which was given should he matter of direct communication with the Court of Rome through the medium of a special embassy.--(Hear, hear.) There was one suggestion of my Honourable Friend to which I could not give my assent after the experience of the last summer in the Mediterranean ; that was to meet the thunder of the Vatican by the more formidable thrader of her fdajerty'a fleet, under the orders of Sir William Parker, at Civita Vecchia or Ancona. - (Hear, hear.) The question before us is narrowed as to the way in which it is proposed is meet this aggres sion, if legislation b r the right mode of meeting it—and if so, if this be the right Bill to promote it.—(Hear, hear.) When I say this Bill, I hardly know whether it is my duty to dis cuss the Bill in the shape I hold it in my hand, or in the amended shape in which the authors of the Bill propose to pass it. (He ir, hear.) The strict rule of the House, and the most proper rule, would lead me to discuss this Bill as it is, and I am very much confirmed in my decision so to do, for I confess my own first imression, when I heard the altera tion that would be made in Committee by her Majesty's Government, was to entertain great doubt whether the pre amble of this Bill, taken in connexion with other laws, would not carry into effect the provisions of the second and third clauses.—(Hear.) Tuat was my impression at first; I had great doubt about it; but that impression was subse quently very much strengthened by the opinion quoted by the Hon. Member for Dundalk, which I hold in my hand and which. was given by three eminent counsel—Mr. Bethell, Mr. Bramwell, and Mr. Surrege. Those gentlemen, being authorities of the highest order, have given deliberately their opinion that the first clause with the preamble would in fact carry into effect all the provisions of the second and third clauses which her Majesty's Government proposed to ' exclude. (Hear.) That assertion was made before her Majesty's Solicitor-General addressed the House—( Hear, hear)—but I never heard that he grappled with the ques tion. It was not levity, lam sure, that caused him to pass it over, and if it be not levity our position is a remarkable one ; in that event, I apprehend, her Majesty's Government would be bound to vote against the second reading of the Bill.—(Laughter.) The first Minister of the Crown said most frankly that the second and third clauses were con trary to their intentions, that they were clauses they would not carry into effect. lie said the second and third clauses interfered with ordination in Ireland, and the collation to benefices and traversed bequests made to bishops and priests and their successors, and altogether would produce such an effect as he neither contemplated nor desired, and that it would be his duty to withdraw those clauses.—(Hear, hear.) But, really, the withdrawal of the second and third clauses will have no effect while the preamble and the first clause stand.- (Hear, hear.) Then, Sir, her Majesty's Government must feel that it is impassible for them, acting under a sense of duty with reference to the second and third clauses, to maintain the first clause, if it have the effect which I appre hend they are not prepared to maintain.—(Hear.) I shall now pass on to other considerations—to far greater and higher considerations. My principal objection to the Bill is first, that it is an extension of a penal enactment; and in the second place, that it is the reversal of a policy, and cal culated for doing great evil.— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Now, Sir, I am at once met by the serious difficulty which almost always meets us whenever we legislate in the va'n hope, where a question of religion is concerned, of reconciling the conflicting interests of Great Britain and Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) A"d if I had any doubt upon this matter before I heard the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, I cannot now entertain the slightest doubt that there never was a matter bearing so strocgly upon the peace and good-will of Ireland towards this country, or of greater importance than the Bill we are now discussing.— (Hear, hear.) I must, however, observe that I entirely agree with her Majesty's Government in thinking that, as they conceived the rights of the Crown were affected by what is termed Papal aggression, and as they resolved to legislate upon the subject, it was impossible to deal separately with the case of Great Britain as contradistinguished with Ireland. —(year, hear.) I think with them, that if there be legislation of this kind attempted, it should be legislation embracing the whole of the United Kingdom, and a great additional objection to the argument of legislation being the way to meet this aggression, is that it is absolutely neces sary, Wpm legislate for England, to embrace Ireland, and to deal with the whole of the United Kingdom.—(Hear.) And what falls from one of the law officers of the Crown who has addressed you? It is quite clear from what the Solicitor-General has said, that circumstances that arose in Ireland have nacre to do with this Bill than even the arrival of Cardinal Wiseman or the intention to found a hierarchy in place of vicars-apostolic.—(Hear, hear.) What was the circumstance on which he dwelt? He was pleased to de signate the prelate who is at the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, as an Italian monk.—(Hear, bear.) And not satisfied with that, he dwelt upon the Synod of Thurles as one of the princi pal reasons why this legislation was necessary; and what was the statement he made? He says, this Bill is effectual for the purpose of doing what? These are his words; he says, " They could not have an episcopal jurisdiction—they could not introduce the canon law—they would not as semble any synod to oppose the decrees of the Imperial Parliament, unless they were bishops with territorial titles, and that this Bill effectually prohibited."—(Hear, hear.) Observe, by striking at territorial titles, it is the in tention of this Bill to put down the organized episcopacy of Ireland, and to deprive them of the power of meeting in synod ; and the reason assigned is, that the Pope, the spiri tual head of their Church, selected as a person to place at the head of the prelacy a clergyman of the Church of Rome— a person whom he designates as an Italian monk—( Hear.) If this Bill be useful for any purpose, 1 doubt the law of the Solicitor-General or his description being accurate; but if his description be accurate, then I say all that was done in 1829, admitting the Roman Catholics to an equality of civil rights, is rendered as nothing by the blow you now direct against them. For 200 years—long before Catholic emancipation - there was an organized episcopacy in Ireland ; the canon law did prevail in Ireland, unmutilated and undisturbed by our legislation, and, whether designated synods or not, the Ca tholic prelates of Ireland did assemble, and meet, and come to conclusions on all matters spiritually affecting the people of that country, and published their decisions, which had the effect of synodical meetings. And if the purpose of that Bill be what the Solicitor-General said, and its effect what I be lieve he is wrong in stating it to be, then most undoubtedly the blow you are going to inflict is infinitely more severe than any fetter on the freedom of Roman Catholic worship in Ireland that existed under the penal code, and previous to the year 1829.—( Hear, hear.) I must be permitted since this question presents itself to my mind in this aspect, and with reference to what will be the bearing of this measure upon Ireland, shortly to retrace our policy with regard to hat country ; and, Sir, I have lately been struck by reading a publication which within a short period has been given to the world. I mean the corresposdence of the late Lord Londonderry, better known by the name of Lord Castlereagh. It contains letters written at the time of the Union, and there is amongst them a secret letter written by Lord Corn wallis to Lord Castlereagh in 1800, which appears to me to be full of wisdom and of warning.—(Hear, hear.) He was a man distinguished for the great services he had rendered to his country in every part of the world, and at the time of writing the letter he had been just diseharging the duty of suppressing by force of arms a rebellion in Ireland.— (Hear.) He had succeeded, and it was to be expected that, flushed by a contest of that kind, and recent successes, he would have been the very last to have councilled what is termed concessions to the Roman Catholics of Ireland; but what was the lesson of wisdom which he taught? He said that if the Government of this country at that time promoted the union, it should be promoted as the means of effecting a great end, and that great end was the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, the admission of laymen to perfect equality of civil rights, and some endow ment for the Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville on this side entirely coincided in opinion with Lord Cornwallis, as did Lord Castlereagh, who was in Ire land. Lord Clare gave an unwilling consent to the union ; he came over to England and used his influence with Mr. Pitt to throw aside the condition of immediate emancipation and endowment, and made his support of the union con ditional on the surrender of that portion of the policy of the Government. - (Hear, hear.) Lord Loughboroug h obtained the ear of th e King, and when his consent was asked to that portion of the policy, King George 111. positively refused his consent to emancipation.—(Hear hear.) Lord Cornwallis was unwilling to remain in Ireland under such circumstances, but be wrote a letter to Lord Castlereagh—a secret letter—and, with the permission of the House, I will read it : - " tiolding Ireland on eur present tenure, how are we to make head against all Europe leagued for our destruction ? Lord Kilwarden again spoke to Littlehales on the subject, and told him that the Catholics placed their trust in me, and in sinuated that his object of my remaining in the Government stter the completion of the usion, was to carry the point for them. Whatever Lord Loughborough's opinion may be of the practicability of concession, he will, in a short time, or I am much mistaken, find it still more impracticable to resist." - Vol. 3, p. 418. "Timid men will not ventnre on any change of system, however wise and just, unless their fears Britain olv, are alarmed by pressing da ngers ."—V o l. 4, p . 20. "The evil genius is thist e is proscription the 000 r o s o f the; but C at perhapshol Catholics."— . Vol. 4, p. 1 o3f. N the House will allow me to refer to a subject of a more lively though not a less instructive character. Loyd Cornwallis failed in being able to obtain any solid advantage f. r the Roman Catholics; but failing in that, he did not with hold from them that which was courteous if not agreeable to their feelings. Now, here is a letter written in very familiar terms, by Mr. Cooke, then the under-secretary of Lord Castlereagh. He says : "We had a dinner at the Castle yesterday. The Titular Primate of all Ireland, the Titular Primate of Ireland, the President of Maynooth (and other noblemen and gentlemen whom he names) formed part of the company." He adds, "We were all very cheerful and pleasant, and the Lord- Lieutenant made all the play."—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Now, he did not hesitate to show-them courtesies, and that not by the exhibition of vice-regal splen lours, but by in viting them to the Castle, and giving them their designa tions of" titular primate of all'lreland," and " titular primate of Ireland." Now, Lord Granville writes also to Lord Cas tlereagh, and he says, " to neglect the Catholic clergy, or to depress them in their station, or lessen their influence with their flocks, must, I think, while so large a portion of the Irish nation profess the Catholic religion, be the very reverse of wisdom."—( Hear.) But, notwithstanding all these warn ings, until 1829 no concession was Made to the Roman Ca tholics. Now, what happened in 1829 ? Why, " the Con queror of a hundred battles," the firmest man in all the world —the firmest in resistance where a sense of duty compelled him to resist—the Duke of Wellington—(Cheers)—he, in concert with Sir R. Peel and Lord Lyndh urs t, w h o h a d been the greatest opponents of concession on principles which they never hesitated to avow, and which they defended in Parlia ment with the greatest ability, without any change of opinion, yielded reluctantly to an overwhelming necessity, and made this concession at last, which Lord Cornwallis and Mr. Pitt had wisely intended to make at the time of the union.— (Cheers.) Now, was this done partially or hesitat ingly by those eminent persons? It was my good fortune to be associated with the Duke of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst, and Sir Robert Peel on the first occasion on which they really resumed and enjoyed power after the concession had been made. Did they ever hesitate to give effect in its broadest sense to the new policy which circumstances had compelled them to adopt? Some one said on a former occasion that the tenderness of Sir Robert Peel's Government in matters re lating to religion was ever shown to the Catholics. I don't think the Protestant Dissenters can be so ungrateful as to forget some of the concessions that were madelto them. The Dissenters Chapel Act cannot be forgotten it ought not to be forgotten, because it was the occasion Of the memorable speech of my late lamented friend, Sir W. Follett, which was the noblsst effort of Parliamentary oratory he ever made, and it was his greatest and last.—(Hear, hear.) But with respect to the Catholics, that was the policy of the' Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. Did they cast a longing eye towards the revival of the civil code ? ' What was the Beq uests Act? It indicated p rett y p lainl y their desire t o conciliate the feelings of the Catholics, so far Church in that cou ntr y . But this is not the whole case. What as cons i sten t with the maintenance of the Established was the conduct of Lord Lyndhurst, the ,Lord Chancellor of that Government, acting with the full concurrence of the of Cabinet, and with the concurrence Lord Stanley? Did the receipt in this he not p ro pose in the House of Lords the entire repeal of the statute of Elizabeth which prohibited country of bulls from Rome? The Bill came down to this House, indeed, in a: state somewhat anomalous, I admit : we proposed the entire repeal of the statute; the House of Lords consented to the repeal of the penalties, but left the offence, without the penalties, still standing in the statute. Now, thi s even i ng , w h e n the House was no t so full, the Hon. Member f or C or k cou nty (Dr. Power) referr ed to what p assed in 1629 , when this particular penalty was inserted in the Relief Act, which this Bill now seeks to extend, and said an impor tant proceeding took place in the House of Lords in Commit tee with respect to that Bill. The clause imposing a penalty of 1001_., upon the assumption of titles derived from sees ()CCU- pied by prelates of the Established Church was proposed by the Duke of Wellington; and when it was so proposed by him, he stated expressly th It he did not tender it as any se curity whatever for the Established Church. I will read you his words. lie said, "It is certainly no security ; but it will give satisfaction to the United Church of England and Ireland." Now there is a moat remarkable circumstance to which the Hon. Member for Cork referred. In 1792, the Irish Parliament took a course exactly similar to that which her Majesty's Government now called upon us to take, and passed a law to prohibit the assumption of any such titles in Ireland. How lon s did that remain in the statute-book? Let the House observe the period when it was passed ; it was in 1792, when we were still at peace with France. —(Hear, hear.) In 1793 circumstances were changed; • Louis XVI. was beheaded, and we were at war with re volutionary France. The right of voting was given to Roman Catholics in Ireland, and the Act of 1792, prohi biting the assumption of those titles, was summarily re pealed. - (Hear, hear.) But the Duke goes on, and he says, " This was one of the incidents which made it so difficult to legislate on this subject at all." Her Majesty's Ministers are now well aware, I dare say, how prophetic that warn ing was. —(A laugh.) He says, "He was aware this clause gave no security to the Established Church, nor benefited it in any way; but it was inserted to give satisfaction to those who were disturbed by the assumption of those titles by, the Catholic clergy." The Bishop of Durham, a most distin guished prelate of the Established Church and the Divinity Professor at Oxford, repudiated this clause altogether; he says he does not desire it as any security; it is no security whatever, and he does not ask for it. And Lord hid-Jus tice Tenterden tells you the clause would be inoperatiye, and he proposed that which would be perfectly operative,. namely tha-. the acceptance of the title by whomsoever peen, on the part of a prelate should be made a misdemeanoine The Duke said, "That would be perfect l y operative; but I must resist this clause; it would be a statutable recognition of the power of appointment by usurpation , a nd to such an admis sion of usurpation I will not be a party. (Hear, hear.) Now again, I must take the liberty of repeating what was stated by he Hon. Member for Cork as a remarkable circumstance. Lord Malmsbury, who had been the strenuous opponent of all concession to the Catholics, made a speech on that occa sion, which is an exact summary of the arguments on this occasion ; he said, " I think the exclusion of Roman Catho lics from Parliament is a bond fide security, butt you have decided against that security e' and then he says, " the clause about assuming titles is a joke, and worse than a joke, for it will have the effect of pro ducing the very agitation which you are ,eeeking to allay."—(Hear, hear.) Now it has been a deed letter, or nearly so, in Ireland. Dr. M'Hale has somewhat ostenta tiously, I had nearly said openly, transgressed time law. Lord Lorton called on Lord Melbourne to institute a lorosecution, but Lord Melbourne, after deliberation, told Lord Lorton that he was not prepared to incur the responsibility of &- reefi i ng any such prosecution to be instituted..{ Hear, hear.) The Duke of Wellington was present on thateaccasion—the author of the only penalties which were needlessly inserted in the Relief Act; and what did the Duke say? Did he stimulate Lord Melbourne to proceed? Quite She contrary. He joins in giving his entire approval of the piiideace which dictated the refusal of Lord Melbourne.- (Cheers.) Now, in arguing this matter, it is necessary to observe the distinc tion between the theological and legal part of' the question, and the spiritual and temporal. Now there is no doubt—and we, the Protestant part of this House, are opposed to such an assumption of power—there is no doubt the Pope of Rouse has claimed spiritual jurisdiction over all baptized souls within this realm. That is an assumption of the Pope which bears date long prior to the Reformation, which was not withdrawn at the Reformation, which has never been abated, and that power of the Pope has existed undiminished and unabated from the earliest times down to the present moment. Now, I conceive that the exercise of this essential power, whether it has been by vicars apostolic, as in Eng land, or by the intervention of a hierarchy, as in Ireland, where a hierarchy has existed without interruption for cen turies - (Hear, hear) -is a question of very secondary import ance. The question is—are you prepared to deal with the pretension itself? and I say our forefathers were wiser, and, until I see you commit the error, I think you will be wiser too.- (Cheers.) It lies at the very root of the Roman Ca tholic religion ; and if you seek to combat that pretension, you may strive to eradicate the religion, but you never can succeed; and if you attempt to eradicate it, away with such a Bill as this - (Loud cheers)—you will have to recur to the blood-stained code of Elizabeth.- (Hear, hear.) That code signally failed, and so signally failed, that Even in my time, by the common consent of the greatest men in this House. that code has been regarded as nothing else than a disgrace to our country.—(Cheers.) Now, with regerd to the confu sion between spiritual and temporal. I ant of opinion that from the earliest times there has been very great care and very great skill shown in the statute law of this country, in making a pointed and distinct definition between the spiri tual and temporal power of the Pope. The s atutes of provisors and praarounire were not framed on a denial of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope; and what is it those statutes have done? They have said, you shall exercise your spiritual power without interruption, as far as the spiritual power goes but we will check you with reference to the temporal, more particu larly with reference to the temporalities attached to the bishoprics, and the civil effect of your spiritual excommuni cation. No attempt was ever made to depy, as an incident of spiritual power, the right of the Pope to appoint bishops. But the statute more particularly says, if you shall appoint a bishop, or translate a bishop without the consent of the Crown, then the temporalities shall not follow your appoint - ment. Further, without denying the spiritual effect of your excommunications, we will tell you our -courts of law shall not be subsidiary to giving any civil effectto your excommu nication.—(Hear, hear.)—The appointment of bishops is an incident of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and the ter ritorial division of this country to give (elect to those ap pointment of bishops is a necessary and inevitable conse quence.—(Hear, hear.) The statute of Richard 11. sought to confine the spiritual power within narrow limits, but left the utmost latitude to the Crown and the courts of law with respect to the:civil rights. This statute of Richard 11. is a remarkable statute. It is not a dead letter. It was framed in Catholic times, when the Catholic religion was in the plenitude of its p .wer. In the reign of Henry VIII. Cardinal Wolsey was indicted under that statute, and was convicted by the Star Chamber. But since the Reformation has that statute been a dead letter? In Ireland, in the reign of James 1., so late as the year 1608, one Lalor, a vicar apostolic, who exercised legantine power in Ulster, and exceeded his authority, and trenched on the temporal power, was indicted before a jury in Ireland, under the sta tute of Richard, and was convicted. Now, the Solicitor- General put to us pointedly this _question. e says,—" I want an answer to this question—Has the Roman Pontiff in partitioning the realm of England into provinces and dio c sea, and establishing therein archbishops and bishops, and organizing a hierarchy for the government thereof, invaded the prerogative of the Crown, outraged the independence of the country ; had those of her Majesty's su bj e cts who had lent themselves to the carrying out of this great scheme , and stood by and abetted him , departe d - from that undiviled al legiance they owe to their Sovereign, vi o l a t e d th e law of the land, and infringed the spirit of the Constitution?" Now, if they bad trenched on the prerogative of the Crown —if they had violated the law of the land -if they had touched the regality—if they had entrenched on th e rea lm of Eng land, then I say the statute of Richard 11. most unequivo cally applies.—(Cheers.) Our Roman Catholic ancestors de. fended the regality of the Crown—(gear, hear) —and de fended the rights and liberties of the subject • and they did provide remedies in those times whi c h were found ade quate, and which, since Reformati on , the in Ireland, by the verdict of a jury, have been Made applicable. But the languageis remarkable in whi c h th e l a w officers of the Crown assigned th eir reasons for preferring the indictment under the statute of Richard in preference to having recourse to the penal statutes of Elizabeth. The preamble of the statute of Richard is in these words : " They, and all the liege commons of the realm, will stand with our Lord the hang, his .said cr own an d hi s r egality, in all casesattempted against him, hi s crown an d r egality, in all points to live and to die. Prcernunire for purchasing or pursuing bulls , &c., from Rome, against him, his crown,. his regality, or his realm." Now s e the subject - matter of inquiry taylaleh touch the K ng , that ought to go to a jury. It is for a jury to decide whether what has b ee n done touches the reg al i t y , to uches the Crown , or touc hes the realm.- (Loud ch e ers.) Now, what were the reason s assigned by the law officers o f the C rown o n the trial of Lalor for preferring the statute of Richard instead of the statute of Elizabeth? They said...." 1, W e ma d e choice to proceed . upon a law made ! more t h an 200 years past, when the hang, the Lords, and Co:nmona, w hich made the most part follow the same i opinions in religion which the ae laws, r ettaught ht the an judges, d g h e e s l , d w ic h in theinterpret Court of Rome. 2. These laws were made to uphold and maintain the sovereignty of the Ring, the liberty o f the peo ple, the commo n law, and the commonweal, which ot h erw i se had been un d e rmined and utterly ruined by th e usurpa tion of the Bi s hop of Rome. For the Commons of England may be an example unto all other subjects in the world in this, that they have ever been te nder and sensible of the wrongs offered unto their kings, and have ever contended to uphold and ma i n tain their honour a nd sovere ignty- Their faith and loyalty have generally.' been such, as no pretence of zeal er religion could ever withdraw the greater part of the subjects to submit themselves to a foreign yoke-ono, not when Po pery was in her height and exultati on ; whereof thi s Act (16th of Richard II.), and divep others of the same kind , are clear and manifest testimonres." -(Ch eers. ) Now, Sir, I contend, to defend the sovereignty of the Crown, no new laws whatever are necessary. - (Cheers.) If that sove reignty has been invaded, you have th e anc i en t l a ws, the unexc eptionable law, to which you may apply and bring your case before a jury ; but if you seek to put down, directly or indirectly, the spiritual supremacy of the Court of Rome over the Roman Catholic population of England, then, in deed, you must embark in a fearful contest.—(Loud cheers.) You must embark in that contest which disgraced England by shedding the precious blood of More, which has for centuries disturbed England, ruined Ireland, and inflicted indelible disgrace on this unhapy rea l m .—(Loud cheers.) The incident of the spiritual part o f th e su premacy is the right a appointing bishops to spiritual jurisdiction, and the division of this country into districts for the more perfect exercise of that spiritual power has also, at least in Ireland, been co-extensive with the exercise of the right itself, and both the cod law and the canon of Eng land have always required that it should be limited by places. Now, the Bishop of Rome Claim s as of right, that he is the Bishop of England, and is this a dormant right? It is only directly as delegates from the Bishop of Rome, that vicars apostolic have ever exercised any power. - (H ear .) You are jealous of the direct inietfereuce of the spiritual power of a foreign prince. Your object would naturally be to remove the subjects of her Majesty from that direct in fluence of the sPope. Now the vicars apostolic are the creatures of his will and the subjects of his caprice, and from the vicars apostolic where is the appeal now ? It . lies only to the Pope of Rome person ; and when you appeal from the vicars apostolic, the Pope is not bound by the ennbn law, but may exercise his caprice in any way whatsoever.---(Hear.) In Ireland the Pope can exercise no such power; and now, with regard to the bishops, why the Pope in the very year of the Revolution (If 88) di vided England into four districts; and again, in 1840, he added four other districts.—(pear, hear.) What took place in 1812 ? Did you not desire that the powers of vicars apostolic should cease, and an organised hierarchy be estab lished in England as in Irelan d ? Why, sir, in 1812, Sir John Cox Hippisley, on the part of the British G overnment (t h e Pope then being under the immediate domination of Napo leon, our great enemy) stated that the British Government desired the people of England should thus be emancipated in one degree, from the direct control of the P ope — (H ear , hear)—and Sir John Cox Hippisley was employed by the British Government to propos e to the Pope that the vicars apostolic should no longer exist, but that a regular organised hierarchy should be established in England.—(Cheers and loud cries of " Hear, hear.") For reasons which, very likely, were not at all favourable to England, the Pope de clined the proposition, preferring to . keep the power more completely in his hands throug h the vicars apostolic—( Hear, hear)—so he refused to comply with the suggestion of the British Government, under which a hierarchy might have been established in Engla nd as in Ireland.—(Hear.) Sir, I would now say a word as to my Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Oxford, of whom, however, I should be sorry to say anything severe. He asked the other night, "Is it not mon strous that a foreign prince, such as the Pope, should exer cise a discretionary power as to what shall be the organisa tion of a hierarchy in this country ? ' Sir, with all submits- sion to my Hon. Friend, if the spiritual head of the Roman Catholic Church were to exercise that power, I know not in what hands it can be vested.— ( Hear, hear.) It is not denied that it is, and may be an aggressive religion. My Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) did not the other night deny that the Catholic religion, on a fair level, had the right of endeavour ing to diffuse its doctrines, which are not only tolerated, but of which the free exercise is guaranteed by legislation in this country.—(Hear, hear.) But on the other hand, if it may be an aggressive religion, surely it is, at all events, entitled to be a defensive religion ; and there may be a disposition to make proselytes from it ; and is it then extraordinary that the spiritual heads of the Church, who have a special care and a special charge as to the providing for the spiritual welfare of their Church, should be the persons to exercise this discretionary power?—(Cries of " Hear.") But then it is said that an incidental effect of establishing this hierarchy will be to introduce the canon law. My an swer is, that in Ireland they have had that canon law for hundreds of years, and I am not aware that, amidst all the evils and sorrows of that unhappy country, any particular importance has been attached to the canon law.—(Hear.) Then, my Honourable Friend (Mr. P. Wood) put in another proposition, that more surprised me still, that we, as the main and Protestant Legislature, should provide for some supposed and contingent evils which might arise to lay members of the Catholic Church from the operation of the canon law, as affecting them ; and he gave us the maxim si cutere tun ut non alienum lcedas —but he knows there is another legal maxim rolenti non fit injuria.—( Hear, hear. ) What injury can there arise to laymen from the canon law? Their obedience to it is voluntary; and the moment they feel aggrieved by it they have only to withhold their obe dience to it.— ( Hear, hear.) This canon law is not recog nized by the law of England.— (Cries of " Hear, hear.") In cidentally, indeed, in reference to trusts, the courts of equity come across it ; and I am informed that the principle they then apply to it is this—Does it Arench on our law ? does it violate any statute? - is it at variance with the common law ? - or, is it opposed to any rule of equity? If it be, then away with it I we have nothing to do with it. Buti fit do not violate any of these principles, then we apply ourselves to it in connexion with that which we consider the will of the testator. This is the s) stem which we have been following for years in Ireland, and no evil has ever arisen from it.—(Hear, hear.) And therefore why there should bs all this horror of the canon law in England, I cannot conceive. —(Hear, hear.) Sit, I would have gladly here have dropped all further reference to the speech of the Honourable Member for Oxford, but there was one observe- tion of his which grieved me exceedingly, for anything falling from him injurious to civil and religious liberty must, considering his known attachment to it, be of great con sequence. He will allow me to say I remember his venerable father. at whose side I fought in the great battle of emancipation, in 1829. And I was therefore the more astonished and grieved to hear those observations from his lips. He told us that the Church of Rome was un changeable, and that, being unchangeable, her doctrines were still as likely to be enforced as ever, and that they might be carried to the extent of even occasionally de throning sovereigns, or relieving subjects and soldiers from their oaths of allegiance! Why, Sir, these are the battered remnants of the old arguments which I thought had been cast aside as filthy rags.—(Lwd cheers, and cries of " Hear, hear.) When, in 1829. we consented to admit Catholics to perfect equality of civil rights and power we were culpable beyond measure in coming to that conclu sion if we believe one word of all this - (Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—or thought that their allegiance was tainted, and of that dangerous description which the Honourable Member implied.—( Hear, hear.) But now, eir, as to these territorial divisions. Have we no authority on the subject? —authorities why we should consider them more harmless than they are represented ? Let me bring under the notice of the House what a prelate of the English Church says of them. Sir, I have sewn with regret many of the addresses of the prelates of the English Church amidst the excitement of this period.—(Hear, hear.) I hold, however, in my hand a most honourable exception—an address from the Bishop of Norwich to his clergy. I quote him with the utmost plea sure, because I cordially respect his character, and think that such sentiments, proceeding from him, are worthy of the highest commendation.—(Hear, hear.) He says, speaking of this Papal aggression, " this measure, apart from the man ner in which it has been attempted, and the language which has been held officially and unofficially, and in certain well known principles of ttomanism which give significancy to what has been done—the measure itself is nothing of which we have any right to complain consistently with our tolera tion of Romanism. An episcopal Church is not tolerated if we interfere with its liberty to appoint bishops, to determine their number and rank, and to bestow upon them any titles provided they do not infringe on any existing rights (the very expression used in the Act of 1829, of which he calls for no extension at all). It might naturally have produced more of amazement than indignation to hear a functionary of Rome declare that he governs counties of England as ordinary thereof. Some territorial division, however, is ne cessary for every community of Christians in an episcopal Church, and the term for a bishop's district is diocese."— (Loud cheers and cries of " Hear, hear.") That is high clerical authority; the opinion of one of the most eminent prelates of our Church, and it is against this Bill.— (Hear.) Have we no high lay authority ? I turn at once to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.—(Hears hear.) Has he not recognised these territorial divisions? Has he not recog nised them most remarkably? I blame him not, because I think the views which led him to write the letter I am about to read were quite consistent with his duty, and in accordance with that policy which was transmitted to him by his predecessors, and which he has most honour ably and faithfully carried out.—(Hear, hear.) But I think= somewhat imprudently he entrusted to Bishop Nicholson a letter which was to be communicated to the Pope at Rome; and in that letter what are the terms in which he speaks of those territorial ,divisions? He had submitted to the bishops certain new regulations for ,the government of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and had hoped to have been able by these regulations to remove the Papal objections to these colleges. What are the provisions he had made for the purpose of giving some influence to the hierarchy in Ireland in the government of the colleges? He says—" The list of visitors has not yet been settled, but I can haveno hesitation in saying that it will include the Catholic archbishop of the province and bishop of the diocese in which the college is situated. As I entertain a profound veneration for the cha racter of the Pope, and implicitly rely on his upright judg. inent, it gives me great pleasure now to ask your Grace to, submit these statutes to the consideration of his Holiness, believing, as I do, it may be advantageously compared with those of any similar institution in Europe." Here is a dis tinct recognition of these territorial divisions, " province" and " dioceso."—(Hear.) Thus then I have cited an autho rity fom a prelate of the Established Church, and from the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in favour of these territorial di visions. —(Hear.) Have I no other authority? What did the Prime Minister say in 1848? The very question of the letter to which I have referred was brought under the notice of the House by Sir Robert Inglis; and it is right I should remind the House that at that time a question had also arisen whe ther there was not an intention at Rome to appoint Or. Wise man Archbishop of Westminster; and the question was asked by my Hon. Friend upon that point. The Noble Lord had denied all knowledge of any such intention, and said it his consent were asked to that, he was not prepared to give P. But as to those territorial divisions of England, I really do not think any opinions can be stated so clealy on this subject as in the words of the Noble Lord himself, which I am about to read, representing as they do my own opinions exactly. With regard to spiritual air hority, whatever control is to be obtained over the spiritual authority of the Pope, can only be obtained by agreement for that end. You must give cer tain advantages to the Catholics, and then obtain from the Pope certain advantages in return. Among which we may stipulate that the Pope should not create any new dioceses without the consent of the Queen. But, unless you have an agreement, you are not in a position to have any such advantage.—(Near, hear) You may say you will have lothing to do v ith any arrangement of that kind, nor give any authority to the Catholic religion in England. But then you must leave the spiritual authority of the Pope utterly unfettered.—(Hear.) You cannot bind the Pope's spiritual influence unless you have some agreemen'. Although you may prevent any spiritual authority from being exercised by the Pope, by law, there is no provision, no law my Hon. Friend could frame which would deprive the Pope of that in flsence which is exercised over the minds of the Catholics. It is obvious that you cannot by any means prevent him from communicating with the - Catholics of this country. You may try to prevent such communications from being opened ; but I think it would be very foolish if you took any means of vigour or energy to effect that purpose.—(Hear, hear.) If such communication be not open, it will be secret; and so long as there are Catholics in this country—and so long as they acknowledge the Pope as the head of their Church—you cannot prevent his having spiritual influ ence over those who belong to his Church.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, I could not possibly express my own opinions be'ter than in the words of the Noble Lord. Within five days of the period when the Noble Lord exp eased these opinions, the Attorney-General had to dis cus; the same question on a measure which had come before the House, The Hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Pearson) had proposed to limit the proposed diplomatic relations with Rome, by inserting the words " touching and concerning international relations." The Solicitor-General opp , ..sed the introduction of these words on the ground that " if those words were inserted in the Bill, in cases where there was the least ingredient of a ssiritual character it would be injurious. Questions of a mixed character might arise, though in the result they were of a temporal nature, and in such no interference could take place. Suppose the Pope introduced any regulation as to the Roman Catholics of Canada, this qualification would prevent any interfer cues." Where, then, is the assault on the regality—where is the attack on the rights and liberties of the subject—where the attack on the prerogatives of royalty ?—(Cheers.) "As the law now stands, the Pope may divide the country into bi hoprics and archbishoprics—(Laughter)—and if the amendment were agreed to he might do so still; but if we had free diplomatic relations with him, the British Go vernment might interfere to prevent such a division." (Cheers and laughter.) I have already told you it is doubt ful whether, by imputation at least, the first clause does not carry fully into effect what in terms is enacted by the second and third clauses. There is high legal authority for saying that it does. - (Hear, hear.) I have already put it to you that if that be so the Government must withdraw their Bill. But take it that it is not so - is this a question in relation to its effect upon the social condition of Ireland that can be left in doubt ? (Loud cheers from the Irish Members.) I have pe-mission to read to the House a letter of Archbishop Mur ray's, which I will do. See if you should chance to make a mistake what may be the effect on the whole social frame work of Irish society, so far as seven-eighths of the whole population are concerned ? Archbishop Murray says : " Dublin, March 3, 1851.—Our Church is essentially episcopal. Our sacred ministry could not be carried on without priests, we could have no priests without bishops, and no bishops but through the authority of the Pope. It is his business not only to name our bishops, but to point out the limits within which this jurisdiction is to be circumscribed. The portion or surface which contains the Catholic flock within those limits may be called a district, or a see, or a bishopric, and the individual appointed to ordain priests, and to carry on the other neces sary functions of the ministry therein, may be a vicar- apostolic or a bishop in ordinary, with this difference, that the former is removable at pleasure, the latter is permanent, and therefore one step removed from the immediate action of Papal influence. Except as Archbishop of Dublin I could not ordain one of my priests. I could net give a parish, I could not communicate with the Pope, I could net correspond with foreign bishops, I could not give letters dimissory, or ordination letters, or letters testimonial. I have laid my hand on an old letter of ordination, which was not for warded to the individual for whom it was intended. It was written in 1828. Were I to issue that letter now I should be liable to a fine of 1001. Though in many in stances we were obliged to act in disobedience to this un just law, we knew that Government was not disposed to act harshly towards us. The spirit which has suggested t the proposed law seems to be very different. From u first view i ee e fpo w erne o d f a oc court uu suchr s t e 2 of a i l t m i agshat documentl b a y e ma inferred :Inleo t eas h ire i i t ea be were dg nw vinvalid ; rie i s nr t ,h i d i da o r w performed might, on that ground, 2 , discontentedewithoutn a tnetaotthw imputation trueugh it is thw clause at and n t edatyrkiee, the ,u t G : rdoch h vel iiarsemsur clause rs f deet ang a ttan n rhd o all t toa h t rv( e er clause con sented eief proposi tion is to be resisted; but MY view be correct, all the evil consequences pointed out by Archbishop Murray will result even if you pass the Bill in its amended form.—;Hear.) The Solicitor General now declares that there has been an invasion of the prerogative of the Crown and liberty of the subject.—(Hear, hear.) I answer if what has been done is illegal why do you not appeal to the courts of law ?—(Cheers.) With respect to the division of the country into districts, we have seen for a long time past arrangements made fur ordaining priests and exercising spiritual jurisdiction by vicars-apostolic in this country, and by a hierarchy in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) I am not aware that these territorial divisions confer any temporal power. Since nonconformity has ceased to be illegal, and Anglican bishops of our own Church no longer exercise power over the whole of the in habitants of their district, but over such only as are within the pale of their own Church—there is no jealousy of episco pal interference on the part of nonconformists.— (Hear.) My Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) has let out the real truth. It is that there is a Roman Catholic bishop's throne established side by side with the throne of the Anglican bishop.—(Hear, hear.) That is the real reason of all this special anger.—(Hear, hear.) And you say, besides, in enumerating your objec tions. that there is something f a foreign influence govern ing this Roman Catholic Church. Now that has been dis cussed often and often before.—(Hear, hea-.) It was weighed well in the balance and found wanting, when we were passing the Emancipation Act.—(Cheers.) If, then, you question the political tendencies of the Roman Catholic Church, and should come to a decision this night on the grounds that the Church of England is in danger, I say ycu are undertaking legislation which will neither ;satisfy that doubt nor remove that danger. For if you commence thus, you must go further. You must reverse the principles of the Toleration Act, you must repeal the Emancipation Act itself, and then. 1 warn them, let the Dissenters of England look to themselves.—(Cheers.) You must legislate, if you legislate at all, with that spirit, with that object, and with that motive.—(Cheers.) But something is said vaguely about synods. We are told that there is great danger from synods, and that, if we are wise, the synodical action of the prelacy will be put an end to. Now, allow me to ask, are you quite clear, here, as to your interference? Since the legal and constitutional right of public meeting exists in Great Britain and Ireland, show me how you can prevent substantially the meeting of the hierarchy being organized, considering the spiritual character and power which would always surround such an assembly, with all the effect of in fluencing, to the utmost possible extent, the conduct of those who are the members of that church.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") My Noble Friend complained of the Synod of Thurles, that it had interfered with the question of land lord and tenant, and that it had condemned the Irish col leges. I regret that this was so. Obviously no person here can feel a more lively interest in the success of these colleges than I do. But I say—and this was suggested in the admirable speech of my Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) a speech which I can but follow—that if there is to be any assem bling of the hierarchy of Ireland, and they are to discuss any subject whatever, I can see none more germane to their functions, none more legitimately falling within their supervision, than this question—is the people of Ireland to be educated in these colleges?— (Cheers.) But, then, the Roman Catholic prelacy and the Roman Catholic clergy in tervene in regard to subjects of a temporal nature. Welt, an swering this, I may say I think 1 remember, during the Anti-Corn-law agitation, a meeting at Manchester of the Dissenting clergy— (Lend cheers)—convened from every part of the United Kingdom. They came to resolutions at this meeting which were very important resolutions. They were returned to this convention from their respective dis trirts as the delegates of the views of their respective con gregations ; and their object was, in which they succceeded, to use their utmost influence against the existing laws in regard to the food of the people.—( Much cheering.) Then I say that if clergymen are to meet, I am not prepared to le gislate for the purpose of imposing restrictions on their meet ing. I am satisfied that, it you are once embarked in this course, you will be led step by step, whatever the Hon. and Learned Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) may contend to the contrary, until you have been induced to de stroy not only religious liberty, but civil liberty also. — (Cheers.) Now, I have treated this Bill, hitherto, as a real and formidable measure. But it has been changed, and it stands much mutilated from its original proportions. When my Noble Friend at the head of the Government rose, in in troducing this Bill, I listened to him with admiration, and with that respect which his talents always command; and as he proceeded, occupying such high ground, and laying his foundations so deep, I certainly trembled for the result, and shuddered as I imagined what was to follow the great oration. I said to myself (tantane animis calestibus ire?) how is this to end—is he about to propose the repeal of the Act of Emancipation? Well, the speech was a great speech ; the measure is comparatively small. Much disappointment ensued, anger excited; and not many hours had elapsed before the Attorney-General rose and assiduously endeavoured to magnify the measure, and to show that it was neither tolerant nor harmless, that it did strike at synodical action, and that if it did not altogether destroy it, it did at all events tend to intercept, the power of granting bequests and beneficial interests in succession to the Roman Catholic prelacy. In short, the Attorney-General made an elaborate effort to demonstrate that it was generally a most formidable Bill. After this, too much being proved, the Government became horrified at the spectre they themselves had raised; they saw the consequences of their creation, and they fled. The Noble Lord, in justifying the retreat, said emphati cally, and said truly, and fortunate it is that there does prevail in all cases this restriction upon statesmen—" When I ask to prohibit what I wish to prohibit I am compelled not to allow what I do not wish to disturb." That is a true description of a difficulty; and it is one of my principal reasons for objecting to legislation of this kind. You are, no doubt, in a dilemma.—(Hear, hear.) If you cut down your measure to a minimum, you run a great danger; and though it may be supposed, it has been most unjustly supposed, that I have any feeling towards Rome, I say I should be ashamed to see the weighty legislative power of this country brought dowa from its efficiency to inefficiency, and laid prostrate at the feet of Rome. On the other hand, if you seek to escape that, and to render your measure effective, then, I contend, if you do not fail, you will embark in a course of legislation which will be neither more nor less than a struggle with the spiritual authority of Rome, until, as I said before, step by step you will be led to the very point you surrendered in 1829, and driven to the enact ment of a penal code with all its restrictions. This, there fore, is the dilemma; impotence on your part is disgraceful; and vigour, in my opinion, is dangerous I say dangerous, I distinctly; I can ill dissemble it. I think that danger, as it relates to Ireland, is the danger of civil war. (Loud cries of " Hear," and "No, no.") I cannot retract the words; and is that an empty threat? Look back to 1829. A tried and firm statesman, certainly the firmest man that, within our day s has been at the head of the Government of this country, declared to the House of Lords deliberately that he bad seen more war abroad than any man then living, seen all its horrors and triumphed in all its excesses, that of all wars what was most to be dreaded was civil war; and he put the alternative to the House of Lords, either make this concession or prepare for that hideous alternative of civil war.— (Cheers.) That, after all, is the question still. But, it is sai ?, the feelings of the people of England have been outraged ; and the language used by the Pope and by his servants has been offensive to English indepen dence. I will not here follow the Hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. J. Reynolds) into any artistic compa risc of the phrases used by the bishops of the Roman Ca tholic Church, with the bishops of the Anglican Church. Assuredly the complaint as to the language used is some what superfluous. It is as if this were to happen—a parable s .mewhat apposite :—A labourer accidentally jostles me in the highway. I instantaneously turn round and knock him down. I knock his hat off and trample it under foot. I roll it in the gutter. I bespatter him with mud. I set the boys on to hoot him and to pelt him ; and, out of breath, with anger and wit's exertion, I lastly call on the police, and give him in charge for the offence he has committed against me. We have had acrimonious language here to-night with re spect to the Roman Catholic Church, and Hon. Gentlemen who rise and express themselves in the heat of debate, may have their excuses. But the prelates of the English Church have used language of which great complaint has been made deliberately in addressing their respective clergy. I think they ought to remember that that religion which they so de nounce is the religion, afar all, of a great maj rity of Chris tendom. Eminent prelates ought, at least, not to forget that it is the religion which tempered the genius of Fenelon, which warmed the eloquence of Massillon, which touched with fire the tongue of Bossuet, and which inspired the tolerant pen of Pascal.—(Cheers.) I trust that I am not trespassing too far on the attention of the House.— (En csuraging cheers.) I speak at this length only because it is necessary, in self-justification, to state freely and frankly all th 3 reasons which have influenced me.—(Cheers.) Now, Sir, it will be remembered that I was one of those who wholly objected to the appropriation clause. I did so for the reason that I did not think it was either right or desir able, or practically politic. had there been no other higher considerations, to strip the Protestant Church of Ireland of its property, merely with a view of endowing the Roman Catholic Church. And I will say now, whatever may have been the policy cf such an endowment at a former period, that that opportunity has gone by.—(Hear.) You can be stow upon them, the people of Ireland, but slight advantages in the shape of endowment of their clergy ; but just in pro portion as you cannot satisfy them in that respect, I think the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, whether laity or clergy, if this be a matter of feeling, if it be reduced to a question of feeling between them and the people of England, are entitled to very peculiar consideration. ( rho Right Hon. Gentleman here proceeded to quote a passage from a letter of Knox to Lord Castlereagh, which he described as equal, in eloquence, to anything from Burke, descriptive of the respective and relative positions of the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches in Ireland. The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke in so low a tone of voice while reading the letter that we were only enabled to gather detached sen tences.) I believe that the Roman Catholic Church in Ire land, the " church of the vanquished," as described in the letter I have quoted from, has a moral claim upon England, and I have always held that, in the circumstances in which they were placed, peculiar delicacy with respect to the peo ple of Ireland is at all events due from the Legislature of this country.—(Cheers.) Now, as to the substance of the Bill. I look first to the names on the back of it ; and am I better satisfied with what I find here? ,What is the first name I see? The name of Russell.—(Hear, hear.) Is this the Rus sell chosen by the city of London as the champion of reli gious liberty ? (Cheers and laughter.) The Russell, whose name will go down to posterity as identified with the re peal of the Test and Corporation Act, and who, with well proved principles and still nobly daring, is even nsgi striving to unrivet the last fetter of persecutio n which hangs upon the Jews ?—(Cheers.) What is the next?Th.res name of Grey. Who is he?—(Laught e r and cheers.) this the nephew of that patriotic Nobleman who sacrificed the ambition of a life, and spent the flower o f his youth in the defence of the great principles of t he H civil and religious claims of the liberty, more especially in the assertion of Roman Catholics?—(Lord cheers.) Theltig hltikeohni.mGeinnthlei-s man is like him—like him in his elo q uence , s b r illi a nce; and sadly suavity, like him, I might add, in do I regret to see his nefimeoatotfh hi e ßo b ss ac e k ll o i f s t t h h is er ß e— ill t . h — e (Hear, hear) The name, invariable advocate of civil and religious liberty.—(Hear.) f b o e r en th b at o . tc h i‘ e i d y . Besides this Bill is not —(Great cheering.) d ) flier r i e s d a t reason h Right Hon. Friends on that bench opposite would not be worthy of the name and charrter of the friends of civil and religioud cher,my us libert ia n f tdhe it y s lw i ere ows adepts in t fra ofming per- pena l laws ( Lo) sonal ski'l in this class of legislation; and God forbid they ( Rene ever become expert and dexterous in such a craft. (Renewed cheers.) My Noble Friend at the head of the G ivernment, in a late speech, referred to his firmer allies, friends, and compatriots— among them t i Grsttan—that noble spirit fled to join with Fox, Canning, Wilberforce, and I ask my Noble Friend, if in his conscience he really believes that one of those men, who all cordially agreed in the prin ciple of the Emancipation Act afterwards passed, would have approved of this Bill ?—(Great cheers.) And if my Noble Friend can say he thinks they would hav e so approved - it, then I appeal from the dead to the living. Would Plunket have voted for that Bill ?—(Loud cheers.) Would Brougham have voted for that Bill?—(Cheers renewed.) Does Den man, I ask, approve of this Bill?—(Loud cheers.) I would he were here to answer that question.—(Cheer:.) Then there is the great historian of th e revo l ut i onary per iod, a man deeply imbued with Prot es t ant pr i nc i ples— l 59k, would Macaulay approve of this Bill? I have tried it by the evi- • dente of the dead and the living. My Noble Friend says that English Protestants are faithful and sincere, and he .ays he depends upon the warm attachment of the vast ma jority of the people of this country to the Established Church of England. He believes that attachment to be from the heart—that there may be a movement on the sur face, but that there is a deep strong under-current of affec tion ever flowing beneath. He believes that their religion is written upon their hearts' core. But, if that be so, then there is no need or occwion in England far this Bill— (Hear, hear) - and nothing in Ireland to call for or justify it.— (Hear, hear.) I feel such confidence in the wisdom of Parliament, that I hope confidently that this Bill will never pass into a law. The Right Hon. Baronet conclud d his speech amidst loud and prolonged cheers from all sides of the House. Lord J. RUSSELL was received on his rising with a re• newel of the cheering, and with ironical cheers from the Irish Members, which prevented his proceeding to address the House immediately. He said,-I hope the House will in dulge me while I make some observations in defence of the present Bill-(Oh, oh! and cheers)-and in defence of the general principle which is contained in this Bill. However this Bill may be described as insignificant, or however its provisions may be described as inefficacious, the House will not have failed to observe that on one side and on the other there has been the greatest zeal and the greatest persever ance shown in commending or in blaming this Bill as fit or as unfit to be adopted. The House cannot but observe that whatever the provisions of the Bill may be, when you ex amine into details, there is some great principle involved, some question upon which it behove,. the Commons of Eng land deliberately to pronounce. Sir, that question is in my view not less than this : -For many years since the restora- Von of Louis XVIII. the Court of Rome has endeavoured to revive pretensions, to attempt domination, to restore supre macy, which many thought had been for ever abandoned.- (Cheers.) And indeed for some time those efforts were at tended with so little success that they might have been safely disregarded, if not treated with con tempt.-(Loud cheers.) But of late years, and more especially since the democratic revolution which took place in the beginning of the year 1849, men seeking for some safety, for some plank by which they might escape in the shipwreck, have resorted to the authority, the influence. the power, and the name of the Church of Rome ; and the clergy , of that church have seen in that circumstance an opporta nity of reviving powers which, if they are successfully claimed, must be fatal to the liberty of every country in Europe.-(Loud cheers.) ;Look at the change that has taken place within the last two years. Look at the change, ad verted to by the Honourable and Learned Member for Ox ford (Mr. P. Wood), and by my Noble Friend at the head of foreign affairs, that has taken place in Austria. You will see there a specimen and instance of that which we allege, and of the abandonment of the se curities which had been wisely formed-of an arrogation of authority in the State which the State claimed to itself as indefeasible, You will see a surrender to the Church of Rome of that which had been carefully and pertinaciously withheld frem her. Look to another instance, of whist we had a valuable testimony the other night of one who bears a celebrated name, and who in that effect gave a proof of talent, and showed that he (Sir R. Peel) could relate to the House in the most vivid and expressive manner the ex- ' perience he had himself obtained in another land.-(Cheers.) Look to those instances, and I think you will not fail to be ' convinced that Europe and the friends of liberty, whether in Germany or Italy or in any other parts of Europe, must now be looking to you • and if after all the Protestant feeling which had been exhibited-if after the sense of indignation which had been expressed, and when a Bill has been brought before the Hcuse by Government, professing to contain a re sistance to aggression-professing to maintain the assertion of the supremacy of the Crown-the Bill should be at *nee rejected on the second reading, without any clear and definite substitute, but merely some hints of resolutions to be passed hereafter-merely some vague suggestions of admiration of the feeling which had been exhibited and opposed to aggression-I think the friends of liberty through out Europe will conclude that in addition to all other conquests, that in addition to all other triumphs, the Court of Rome has obtained this great conquest, has obtained this most splendid triumph-the conquest and triumph over the minds of the House of Commons of England.-(Lend cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet who spoke last, referring to mare celebrated persons who had been advocates of the Roman Catholic claims, quoted as first and most memorable of them all the name of Grattan. I will refer also to the name of Grattan, because like him (Sir J. Graham) I look :to Grat tan as a man who had studied this question more deeply, and as one who was not only most impressive in urging the claims of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects to civil equa lity and to seats in Parliament, but one who had studied the genius of Rome, and had studied the nature of both Ireland and England. Now, what was Mr. Grattan's prediction on this question? In 1817 he said - " I beg to observe that there is now every reason to hope, and there is no reason to doubt, but that securities may be had. and such securities as the House will perhaps think desirable. There may be domestic nomination, there may be a veto, there may be both The question is, whether any securities whatever will be received. Let me tell you why. There is a communication between the Pope and the Catholic clergy which must end either in an incorporation with the see of Rome, or a connexion with the Government of England ; and if the latter be refused it will be dangerous to the safety of England. You will have the Catholic clergy incorporated with the see of Rome, and the Catholic laity discorporated from the people of England." Now, be it observed that Mr. Grattan, supported as he was on that occasion by the men of all parties of eminence in this House-by Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Ponsonby, by Mr. Brougham, by Lord Althorp, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Canning, and by many others who sage afterwards to great distinction, said, " You will have one of these two things ; -you will either secure the domestic nomination of bishops and a veto in the han Is of the Crown, or, failing that, you will see the whole Catholic clergy incorporated with the See of Rome, and the Catholic laity discorpo rated from the people of England." Sir, recent events have shown that there was too much truth in Mr. Grat tan's prediction. You have neither the domestic nomina tion of bishops, nor have you the veto in the hands of the Crown. These were the securities proposed in 1817 ; they were not proposed in 1829; and you have that now which did riot exist in former times • instead of two vary distinct bodies-n-mely, Roman Catholics who were Roman Catholics in religion, but who had no veneration for the Pope as a temporal power, you have seen by the declarations of the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Camoys, that these men are few indeed, who in these days will sepa rate themselves from any pretensions of the Church of Rome -(Cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers)-and who will not affect those pretensions. whatever they may be.- (Hear.) Now let me again repeat to the House that this is the prediction of Mr. Grattan, the very man to whom my Right Hon. Friend referred, and rightly, as the greatest authority who could be quoted on this occasion. Now, if that be true which he pre dicted-that you have the Catholic clergy incorporated with the See of Rome, and that the Catholic laity are in a great degree discorporated from the t eople of England, I say it be hoves us to see what is the danger that we are now incurring, and whether we can have any means of meeting that danger. I cannot but say I have been greatly struck by the theories that have been propounded to the House on the subject of religious liberty.-(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Plymouth, in his most able speech, told us that if you had rligious freedom you must allow to those who claim that heed= that which belonged to their own religion-to their own church ; that if they had an ecclesiastical organization you must permit that ecclesiast cal organization to be com pleted, and therefore you must allow, uncontradicted, any. thing which belonged to the faith which those persons main tained. Now, how far does this pretension go ?- (Ilear.) Because the real question is-which the Hon. and Learned Member did not touch upon-who is to decide what is eccle siastical-what is spiritual in these natters?-(Hear.) Are Roman Catholics, on the ground that it belongs to their eccle siastical arrangements, to make any assumption they please - to claim any sway over this realm of England-(Hear)- to claim any supremacy over the Queen of England-(Hear, hear)-aua are we to be satisfied by their saying, England-( This i s ecclesiastical - this belongs to our religicc ?" - (Hear, hear.) Would the Hun. and Learned Gentleman be satis fied with any assertion they might make in this respect with regard to spiritual and temporal matters? My Right Hon. Friend seemed disposed to say that religion is a matter connected with spiritual concerns, and, there fore, it is a spiritual matter in which the State cannot in terfere with the proceedings of the Catholic clergy. Now suppose they should declare that in Ireland the National Board of Education is dangerous to their faith, and that any pars n belonging either to the clergy or the 14y who as sisted in carrying that system into effect should be excom municated and deprived of the rites of religion, that being a matter entirely spiritual-or suppose they go a step further, and say with regard to the police and military that a person cannot remain in the police or military under a Sovereign wlo countenances and sanctions such measures? - (Cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers.) Hon. Members say " Oh !" and I hear one say that that should not be al lowel ; but that is exactly what I expected, because it shows that you cannot rest satisfied with the assertion of the Roman Catholic clergy that such a matter is spiritual or ecclesiastical, but that you must judge for yourselves whether it is so or not, and decide according to your judg ment- ( Llear, hear)-and here another Hon. Member says that cannot be done. Now, having read somewhat of his tory - not only of that history to which Hon. Gentlemen thought it wrong to refer-that tf the times of the disputes between Catholics and Protestants-but the history of most recent times-I must say that trusting to the moderation of the See of Rome as to the distinction between temporal and spiritual is one of the worst securities you can have. It was only yesterday I was looking, cursorily indeed, at the cor respondence, about the year 1816 or 1817, between the Secre tary of State of the Pope and the King of Naples, and the King of Naples said, " I may be quite wrong in refusing you tribute-in refusing you certain lands w hich you claim, but in menacing me with certainly you can hardly be justified . - • s y u o c u h n wa r esgtahredotpoi opinion tem poral tahno.d, matter, towhat it as spiritual censures, became I opposedßut poral matter."-(Hear, hear.) that a the Pope, that he thought . temporal matter wa s a if depend we were entirely t trust to the Papa is extended matter of s pi r itua l l a co ut g b n a i r lan ty c i e n , shall hear the spiritual jurisdiction far beyo n d we (Hear, bear.) Hon. Member said, and my Right Hon. Friend who And one . that of which we have any conception now.-(Hear, the language of the Po been lately done, that spoke last has said, among the rest, in referring pe and of the pastoral is arrogant in the extreme, and needlessly offensive to the people of England.-(Hear.) That ie an ad m i ss ion to a certain extent; but the question is, whether it is an admission to the extent which is really requited by the nation.-(Hear, hear.) I must beg the attention of my Right Hon. Friend, who, although no doubt he has studied this question a good deal, seems, I think, to have mistaken some of the most material points of it -(Hear)-I must call his attention to what really is tho character of this resceipt of the Pope ; and before I do so I must refer to a writing of Dr. Wiseman, in the Dublin Review, which I found referred to by Mr. Palmer, in his book on the Church. lie says " The apostolic see, it is said, charges those who call them selves the archbishop s and bishops of the Church established in England and Ireland with being intruders by favour of the civil power into the sees of those realms ; inasmuch as they ani their predecessors took posses ion thereof in spite and to the detriment of the patr i arc hal rights of that see , which , from the c anons and by immemorial usage, had been ex ercised in the nomination or approbation of all metropolitans and bishops. Up to the time of Henry VIII. this right was perfectly acquiesced in, when by his statute 25 Henry VIII. c. 2 letters missive to th e o, the no mination was reserv ed by . King, all the au hority of the apostolic !ee being set aside such subversion of the rights long holdea and admitted of this a postolic see, and such assumption of a power never admitte d in any p<rt of the Church, were clear in fringements of the canons , an act of usur pation and i n t rus ion which is null an d void in all it s con sequences." is an assertion to this extent. ass That a.ot noticing at present the historical fallacies contained in the statement, this is an assertion that that Act of Parliament of Henry VIII. is null and void in all its consequences; that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London and Winchester, andtae other bishops of this realm, no longer exist, the appointments thereto being void. Upon this fol lows this rescript of the Pope, in which, after naming all these new archbishops, it is declared at the end " And we decree that these our letters apostolical shall never at any time be objected against or impugned on pre. f the every ended leen. asure, by cele- Dbers