The Express.
London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1851.

- -
IMPERIAL PARLIANENT. , tradiction to a statement not made by him (Sir R. Inglis), ! petitioner to this house had been not on:y impugned, but'
. but contained in a petition laid before the house, and only had been alleged to be untrue. But he was going to show
HOUSE OF LORDs Tr -.-- RUMS, MARCL adverted to by him, relative to a certain young lady-, Miss the value of the contradiction of the bon. member for ,
21. Augusta Talbot, who, the petition alleged, was now a Dublin, and to show the house that if that hon. gentleman
Tba Loan CNA:feel-Loa took his mat at 6 siclock. : postulant, and detained for the purpose of taking the veil had had the candour and fairness to give the house the in
COUNTY COURTS EXTENSION ACT BILL. at a convent at Taunton. The hon. member for Dublin ells- timation regarding the letter of the Bishop of Clifton (the
Lord BROUOIIAM, in moving the second reading vf tinetly denied the truth of this statement. The denial was ltev. Mr. Hendren) he would have informed the house that
this bill, explained certain additions which he at made at a time when he (Sir R. Inglis) was absent front Miss Talbot was a, postulant. (Hear, hear.) He would
suede to it. First there was • declaratory clause, for the house. Since that denial, be had received a letter from read the passage :—' the Lord Chancellor decided that she
the purpose of removing some doubts which had arisen Yr. Craven Berkeley repeating the statement and guarantee- should return as a boarder to the convent where she had
from the construction of the acts of 1816 and 1860, to pre- Me its truth. The hon. baronet then read the following . been educated, if they would receive her. But this was
vent the possibility of persons holding is doubt upon the document refused, because at that convent no boarders are received.
voluntary jurisdiction at law. Then there was a clause ''bp trutb of the statements contained in my petition has been liar Miss Talbot then proposed to beg admission as a puetu-
which enacted that in Cane of a new trial the venue ' in.1.8.14* That p Litho w.. 4 not drawn up without due considers- ; lent, that is, as one intended to become in due
might be changed so that the cause might be tried Lotheie and ass ready to reedy on eath every st dement em- I time a nun, if considered to be properly qualified."
before some other county court judge than the one M. a ImeetnPeiermhupe. Tit; .I"fist°.:l y.ftbyer;illl/W
itnabe.lehuilhat::.d.ich And, acconlingly, the bishop said, in the offer part of the
who originally heard it. Upon application to a limners. Waite eira-ej thaboltanf mos. ''„,e'r,„,,,,,- letter, that " she was admitted somewhere about the be-
judge of a superior court, the venue might also be changed • /mss Talbot l• • pa-talent in •••"'lnt galled the bodge. at Moulton, ] ginning of September." (Immense cheering, and cries of
to another county in the first instance. Neat he pengooed , awkoanonow wisher fact that she was admitted a the time sated " Oh, oh.-) Thus Mr. Craven Berkeley had declared, in
to add a clause which would require the defendant to give byre in the sal 6 petition. In tact, I rejoice to add mat this butt .e. his petition to the house, that his step-daughter was a pew-
notice that he meant to defend, and if he did not give such aiii he mils h,lll:l•4::,...eit,m,i,tetelag otti,,;term.s ever
sure Lsataiterneut I have
:ever tulant, anal the hon. gentleman the member for Dublin had
notice he should not be permitted to offer evidence at the , who have had the tem*. ri-g to attempt to ea.t the I.2iflumro7fulieTsrl= denied the allegation of the petition by a resolute assertion
trial ; and that then the plaintiff should give such evidence " leen myself. I therefore look Samara to your kind ~04. 1 detiaring that it was altogether untrue. He (Sir B. Hall)
as was usual in unilefi ndssl eases. This would prevent the I "le, ..... Ling..mn a, II phoning We matter in its true hest. . now told him that by the letter of one of his own
plaintiff from bringing all his witnesses and documents . see ... ups the postponement of the Iteligious Mow*" bishops, which he had used as an authority, the statement
when there wee no purpose to be served. It, ,
Bill the-weenies, Mr. Reouldr toh that opportunity to ,in the petition was true. (Oreat cheering.)
i charge Inc with untruth in my tetition, and that, tro, upon the prin. I Mr. M. 6111 SON said he rose to call the attention of the
alter having omitted to give notice there should be • dis- , chea slim:aim, s La., !bat Mies 'NINA was not in the or.vent at noble lord at the head of the government and of the right
coven- of new evidence or any other circumstance which ' faunae with the view of tame the veil urd as an avolre 1 0 Pad, ,
would excuse the defendant from not having given notice, lam." I sits I feel otil more indebted to you than I ,k, at ne,„,n a hon. the Chancellor of the Exchesper to the present posi-
Ten applicatien to a judge the trial might be postponed:
1 e had been premed to introduce a deux. with rekrune• 'meta your arMeebmam!'
yea wit, mote in Lie hott, the Vat )ti
statement, proihiing it ,
Hearing that ilies tallud was Is the eon- too of the public business. (Much laughter and eheenng.)
This was the 21st of 3larch, and he believed he was stating
e vent at l'aunton. on toe 14th of lot moat I proceeded there for tin , the truth when hi.' mid that the house had only sat for pair
another matter. By an act in 1616, tithes in E land I, o . nit .
and Wales had been commuted, and the operation of I it'eled7visf., teat' St:Oer. an'l
ware risbir thet.tr&l uf
itnhereport I hail lie business cue night.
R the woofs, " • (Hear, hear.) It might even be
that act had been almost universal, 60 that little I6lwe J. fnialthem. MOMS be ar TS:: commit into the"foot' nr y i consider, d that the first night of the session had been the
or no tithe now existed; under the old law, it, amed teat lady errant re mon I Met bear wo. L tee ; .I,..sied 1 only night of Public buliflo•-
- - Li,,,.. lin beat tact It was, that Me Tar bra bur treed then la sap.' Sir 1 . ACLAND recalled the attention of the house to the
. ... . .. . _ .

being nearly all converted into rent charge. By the law,
ma it mow stood, hir that rent charge there was no nmisly
whatever, eseept by distress ; and he could not conceive
that adding this to the county court jurisdiction would
make a material change in the law. Not only was then:
nn way of els overy but by ilistnuo, but there was an ex-
press provision that there should be no personal liability.
l~everthelesa, it was very hard that the parson should be
obliged in every (am• of refusal to pay tithes to have re-
course to a distress, which was very repugnant to their
feelings. ntning reicommcsidations and argent entreaties
had Non made to him by many of those reverend peysone
to all a clause to the bill giving the county court judge
jurisdiction with n.ferroce to arrears of rent charge to the
extent id 401. He had also been urged to add to
the bill a provision of a most important nature,
which be should postpone for the present, hut he strongly
roonimendeil that eventually it should be added to the
bill. The state of the law was such that any person of sane
mind would never dream of going into the Court of Chan.
eery for a di Id of the amount of lOW. Their lordships, in
fact, had been told by a society of practitioners in that
eourt—the solicitors—that for less than 1,1100/. it would be
absurd for any man to think of going into Chancery ; and
he thought, it it was possible togive equitable jurisdiction
to the county courts, that suits in equity might be must
nds.oitageou.ly brought in those enures to the extent of
tool.— (cheers) --subject to the right of either party to
remove the suit to a superior court, as there was
Don • power in any rause at common law, if two judges
of a superior court thought it should be so removed.'
At present persons never dreamt of going into Chancery
fur small amounts, and were obliged to submit to the has
of such sums altogether. (Hear, hear.) There was an-
other subject to which he wisher) to call their lordships'

Weaker last ea—a"pusiukait. and that as ion roe the period of her
postulaney expired she lewd take the white nail, sad when that
period es parcel she would take the blacla, and become a can. When,
Mao. Taib at awe Into the room I requested to he allowed an Mtn,
view with her without the memo& Many one; bid Mn. retrench=
inktaned me, that worn Lord Shrewsbury placed her there eke wee
to see no oar, by he. exprea order*, not men her owe halaeirati r
(which I premei) camp lag la the presence of the superior or the
Meares@ or the convent. I then, in the americana, of Miss Jerningitani
shed Tailmt if it.. were a petulant, and remised an answer an
the alllrrnaline. I then Tenth= rated moat seriously with Mina
Talbot, recaillag to tier recollection some dying icjuncaluas or her
poor smother, and made such an =premise 1.4100 her, that in spite of
the press on. of the superior, .n concluded an obserraithre by telling
in. ih.t she bad • I me tour heti= her precious to teol,.g the rind
step, ma, Ma man= more poatularny, sad a whole year al the white
Till; the.. were her ow. ward.. I hare written to Mr. Iternol4.
requestiong to knew opuo what authority he charges me with ea
untruth.

fact that his hon. friend near him hail asked a question of
a very different kind, but of much more interest—a ques-
tion to the First Lord of the Admiralty.
Sir F. BARING said that the proposal of sending a steamer
to Captain Austin, as proposed by his hon. friend, had met
with due consideration, but the Admiralty were of opinion
that it was not necessary or advisable to send further vessels.
Captain Austin'sexpeation was furnished with provisions
for three years, besides those which had been left by other
captains, and for the mere purpose of conveying intelli-
gence and hoeing a heavy responsibility, the Admiralty did
not think themselves justified in sending out more vessels.
All had been done that a generous country could require
them to do ; and the Admiralty must do their duty In stop-
. ping further supplies of this kind.
Sir E. N. BLATO.N went all lengths with those who
were anxious to do what was possible for the recovery of
Sir J. Franklin and his gallant patty.
Admiral BERKELEY said that government had done
everything which they could have done in the matter. Sir
I John Moss would be back in August, and he would bring
all the information they could secure, even though they
sent a vessel now.
GOVERNOR OF DOMINICA.
In reply to Mr. O'FLAILERTY,
Mr. HAWES said that an offer of the governorship
of Dominica had be-en made to the honourable and gallant
member tOr Longford, but as to whether he had accepted
the Chiltern Ilundreils he (Mr. Hawes) could say nothing.
CENSUS RETURNS.
Sir G. CLERK begged to ask the right hon. baronet the
Secretary for the Biome Department whether he was pre-
pared to lay on the table of the house a letter which he had
addressed to the Registrar-General on the subject of the
census returns.

THE ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.
Sir It. INGLIS haring read the shove letter said, without
resuming his seat, that he would take this opportunity of put-
the question that stood upon the paper in his name to his
right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was
ea gallows To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty as to
Met (muses, if any, of the delay in sending out a steamer to
=let Captain Austin, R.N., in the Arctic seas during the
mawaing summer."
CASE OF MISS AUGUSTA TALBOT.
The moment Sir U. Inglis sat down, and before Sir F.
awing could reply to the question,
Mr. REYNOLDS started upend said it was not his in-
tenti„,r, to answer the question the honourable baronet had
just put, but he hegged the indulgence of the
house while he explained the part he had taken.
in reference to the ease of Miss Talbot, which had
. .
been before

attention: In many considerable borough., there were
courts of limited and unlimited jurisdiction, such
sis the notionler's Court at Manchester, which hod a
limited jurisdiction; but it wax an important court. 'Then
there 111 w an important court at Salford, another at Liver-
pool, and the Tidwy Court at Bristol; at Birmingham also,
and in many other boroughs there were similar courts.
In all thew ancient courts the fete wore on a much more
bland scale than in the county courts, where the utmost
amount to which a solicitor could he entitled was 2i. 4s. lid.
lie need not say that where these ancient courts
calmed solicitors had a motive for inducing their
clients to tinter them to the county courts, although
It was clearly the interest of the suitor both plaintiff and
defendant to choose the county court. Ile proposed, then,
that where the town council in any.burough, in which there
was an anciiiit local court established, should petition the
!avian in council, such petition should be refemsl to the
judicial committee to settle the terms and examine into the
case, and they should have the power of extinguishing the
.n of the local court by transferring it exclusively
to the countycourt, lie had framed a clause on this subject.
He wished a commission to issue, and inquire into all an-
cient courts, in order that their lordship, might effectually
and safely legislate upon this most important subject—a
brancli of the sullect so important that until it was satiw
facturily arrow he would never believe that the count
court system was in a state of perfection. (War, hear.)
He had been pressed to include tribunals of com-
merce in the bill. Now, upon this subject he
would take the liberty of saying that he had the strongest
and clearest conviction of the high expediency of these tri-
bunals. The good they hod produced in France, Belgium,
and Holland, it was almost impossible to calculate. He
only stationed from attempting to legislate on the subject in
the present bill, because the difficulties were such that he
thought t hey must be made the mil iject of an entirely separate
act. Those tribunals were constituted olmercantile mimeo-
tirely. These men were appointed by the governments of
different countries, such as France, Delirium, and Holland,
and they were taken from list. of merchant, and respectable
tradesmen, presented by the general body. From three to
five gentlemen discharged the duty, sometimes Mr a year,
sometimes for two years, and they sat and exercised exclusive
juriolietion in the first instance user all mercantile cases
whateser. Their clerk or registrar was a gentleman learned
in the law ; and, from their decisions, there was an appeal
to a court called the Court of Cessation. The admirable

brought s. the house by the honourable
baronet. His eaplanation was this : the hon. baronet,
very late at night or very early in the morning, had loosed
a proposal to bring catholic convents within the scope of
new law, and that had led him (Mr. Reynolds) to make
the nmark he had tittered. He had heard the statement
just made by the hon. baronet, and the letter he had read
from a menther of that holm, and was of opinion that, so
far from netting himself right, the hon. baronet had made
himself more wrong than before. Ile (Mr. Reynolds)
assured the house that he had it from the best authority (the
guardian of M isn Talbot) that she was not,and never had been,
a postulant in the convent. But what had Mr. Berkeley
*mil in his petition? That Him Talbot was not there as u
"pupil or visitor, hut, as a postulant, with the avowed
ohjoet of allowing the said Augusta Talbot to take the veil
mil become a nun." That was Mr. Berkeley's statement
Nu. 1, and it was untrue. Mr. Berkeley next stated, " That
year petitioner in deprived of all communication and con-
. all2loll with his limp-daughter, the said infant Augusta
Talbot." That was his statement No. 2. But he held ill
bla hand a letter, signed by J. W. Hendren, a catholic
priest and bishop, dated 18th March. What did that right
reverend prelate any? (The hon. gentleman read
the following pansage from the letter of the Rev. Mr.
Hendren to the Tawet.) " Some five or six week.
ago, Mr. C. F. Berkeley, who had not seen
his stepdaughter, nor seemed to trouble himself about her,
presented himnelf at the convent, saw Misa Talbot, and as-
certained from her that she was there by her own free
choice, and that she had no intention to leave, as far as that
deism:KA on herself. Ile then alluded to the disposal of her
property." (Vehement cheering.) That would make it ap-
pear that the property was the principal object of this visit.
(Cheern and counter cheers, mingled with cries of " Oh,
oh.") That hon. member said " Oh" with his usual spirit,
but he hoped he would let him read these documents with-
out saying •• Oh "or " No." But the Her. Mr. Hendren
said that Mr. Craven Berkeley saw her, and how did
that square with the ponnage in which he said that
he was " deprived of all communication with her ?" (blear.)
Why he had teen her fife weeks before. What was the
meaning of till thin? What had that house to do with Minn
Talbot or her property ? Were hon. members prepared
to convert that house into an arena like Exeter Hall ?
Mir,. Talbot was taken care of—(u burst of cheering),
Who took can of Mins Talbot? (Hear, hear.) Why the
Lord High Chancellor of England. She was a ward in
• ..

Sir G. GREY said the letter referred to was a letter not
addressed by him (Sir G. Grev) to the Registrar-General,
but one addressed by the Registrar-General to the clergy-
men throughout the country asking them to supply certain
returns. Ile (Sir G. Grey) thought the letter had already
ben laid on the table, but if not he had no objection to its
production.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. STAFFORD begged to ask the Secretary of State
for Ireland when it was his intention to bring in the Land-
lord and Tenant Bill promised at nn early period of the
present sec-iou. It was desirable that the government
should either bring in this bill soon, or not legislate un the
subject this session.
Sir W. SOlff BRAILLE said it was the intention et
government to bring in a Landlord and Tenant Bill fur IN-
land this session, but in the present state of public business
it MA, impossible to give any information as to the day ea
which it would be introduced.
STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Mr. ROCHE wished to recall the attention of the noble
lord at the head of the government to the question which
had been put to him by the hon. member for Manehistt r
(Mr. M. Gib on), who had asked her Majesty's ministers
whether, after they took the second reading on this so-called
papal aggression bill, they would be prepared to go on with
the other business of the country—that was, whether they
would keep all other business hung up until they carried
this penal measure against the Roman catholic* through
the house.
Lord J. RUSSELL said—The hon. gentleman (Mr
Ruche), let me observe, has put quite a different que-lion to
me front that of the right hon. member for Manchester
(Mr. M. Gibson). The right hon. member for Manchester
complained of the great length of the debate on this
catholic question, and asked whether we would not suspend
the adjournment of the debate ? That is not the question
which has been addressed to me, properly enough, by the
him. member (Mr. Roche). I should have been glad
enough had the debate been finished on Monday night,
but, as hut. members wished to speak on the subject, it was
deemed proper not to hurry on the amnion it will, how-
ever, I think be admitted that the subject has ben tolerably
exhausted now. But with regard to the question of the
bon. member (Mr. Roche) I have no difficulty in answering
it. I understood him to ask whether, tier the second
reading of this bill, we wouldrucetd with other business.
already

working of this system it war impossible to describe in any
lantintlatt beyond its merits. After some further observe,
tious and explanations, Lord Brougham moved that the
bill, with the additional clauses, uow read a second time.
The LORD CILANVELLOIt considered that many of
the suggestions to Ishii"' his noble and learned friend had
referred were well deserving attention, and that several of
the clauses of this hill might tend to a most useful purpose,
to iarry out which, however, it might be neeeisary to mole
Sonic amendments in the way of extension. As his noble
and harmed friend did not, as he understood, invite discus-
sion on the present 0CC114041, he would nut enter into the
variou.lik-ttits to Which hi. noble and learned friend had
refeneiL Ills noble and learned friend had spoken
of tribunals of commerce, and no doubt they
a. re institutions which in many countries were of
gnat value, but it did not therefore follow that
they would he advantageous here. Ile imagined that the
me reliant, of this country were quite 113 competent to
judge of what was hest kir their interest as those of any
whir country.
Lord 11Ittft:011AM observed that one object of his bill
was to prevent the union of the attorney and barrister in
tto .am,'
Lord ('RAN WORT II remarked that the explanation
thy noble and !consist lord had now given suggested to him
to importance of their lordships not committing them-
s. It., until they knew what the details of the bill were, fur he
had understood from the Ohs' • g speech of the noble and
harried lonl that it was intended to unite the attorney
and barrister in the same person. The result of his expe-
rience led him to heldve that the barrister would make a
very bad attormsv, sad that in the matirity of cases the at-
torney would make an colony hail at %ovate.
After a few words from Lord ANlNlittl. and from Lord
bitOtlittala in reply, the motion was agreed to, and the
bill read a secosd time.
Their lordships then adjourned at a quarter past seven
o'clock.

Chancery—. Her relative was peer of the realm, mai her
guardian was a gentleman high in the church of which the
young lady herself was a member; and he asked this ques-
tion in sober serioientss—if a protestant were dragged be-
fore this house for hating entered a protestant convent—
for there were such institutions--(hear, hear)—and the less
he said about them the better—what would hare been said
in such a ease? What was the case? The lady
lu•bmgeel to the highest rank of the aristocracy. She
had property. She watt guilty of being educated in a con-
vent ; was guilty of the additional crime of taking shelter in
that convent with the consent of the Lord Chancellor and
of Lord Shrewsbury; and bemuse she had thus taken
shelter, this Mr. ,'raven Berkeley, who was not of
her blood or of her religion, who had no claim
of colour or complexion with her, choosing to think
she is not sufficiently attended to—(cheer, and re-
turn cheering)—intruded himself at the convent—and his
tooduct was most unwarrantable—and being admitted to
on the young lady herself, she told hint she was under no
footraint, but intended to dedicate her life to the service of
Ood—to spend her time in prayer, and if she thought
proper to expend her money in the relief of the poor, mud
devot ion to charitable and benevolent purposes. This
was the case which had produced all the rant they had
►eared. During the hour and a quarter occupied
last night by the noble lord at the head of the govern-
ment, in reply to the speech of the right hon. baronet
the member for Ripon, the noble lord animadverted with
great spirit upon the addresses of the right him. member
for Ripon and the hon. and learned member for Plymouth,
but during the whole time no word of censure fell from the
noble lord that could be extended to the speech of the bon.
member fur West Surrey. But let it not be said that that
speech of the hon. member for West Surrey was the only
speech of an offensive character against his countrymen.
He thought, indeed, that the speech of the noble lord
Mown* might be called No. 2. Retunting to Miss Tal-
bot's case, he said that unless they denied to catholic lathes
the privileges of protestant ladies, and the ladies of Wes.

I may-say, as it ha; been _.ly stated, that as ,0011 as the
house has decided on the second reading of the bill we
shall proceed on the tint order night with the army esti-
mates, and endeavour to obtain a vote, and introduce the
Militia Bill. Immediately after that notice will be given
as to what shape the budget will assume, and on the
next order day we shall take the vote on the income tax.
(Hear, hear.)
After some unimportant conversation rind explanations,
The question, that this house at its rising du adjourn till
Monday, was put and agreed to.
MAILS FROM PARIS.
Mr. W. BROWN begged to ask the Under-Secretary
of State if any stein had been taken for expediting the
arrival of the mails front Paris in order that they might be
despatt bed hr the morning tunas to the provinces.
Mr. C. LEWIS replied that arrangements had been mails
for the despatch a the Paris mails to the provinces by the
morning mails.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
The order of the day fur resuming the adjourned debate !
on this bill having been read,
Mr. B. OSBORNE, who feared that silence would herein
prudent, but was compelled by conscience to speak
was willing to admit that a great spirit existed against papa
aggression, and he would nut underrate the difficulties set
the ministry in dealing with the question. In the peer
*jams, he admitted, public opinion was strong on the ,Rib.
ject. Ile did nut dispute the assertion that the language'
which had been used by the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman
hail been arrogant and imperious. (Hear, hear.) But
because a Romish eeclesiastic had thought proper to
issue a mandate couched in the language of the middle
ages, was the government to be alarmed, was parliament
tube frightened front its propriety, was the country to be
thrown into paroxysms, and were Roman catholles
to be stigmatised as beings who were excessively dist
(laughter, and "hear, hear")—were the Roman ca=
to be accused of violating their duty to their.
sovereign because Cardinal AViseman had committed

HOUSE OF CONIMONS.—Faimy, MARclt 21.
Thy tirzaa►a took the chair at i o'clock.
MU. HENRY DRUMMOND AND TILE ROMAN
CATHOLIC MENIIIERS.

.
kyans and all other sects they must not arraign such mat-
ters as these, and he trusted they would have no more of
them. (Cheering.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he understood the hou. member
for Dublin to say that he was present last night when the
hoe. member fur West Surrey had made the observations'
which the hun. member fur Dublin alluded to as offensive,
and that he (Lord J. Russell) had not interrupted the lion.
member fur West Surrey or palsied any censure upon hint.
He (Lord J. Russell) hail but one sooner. The hon. mem-
ber knew that he was not present in the house at that time
—(hoar, hear)—and, not being there when the hon. gentle-
man made the observations complained of, he had thought
It better for him to refrain altogether from all
comment upon the circumstance in his speech after-
wards. After stating this as a matter of fact the
bun. member fur Dublin had alluded to hi. (Lord
Russell's) speech of yesterday evening. I must say
(continued the noble lord) that I do not perceive, when
speaking with respect to the division between the
temporal and the spiritual part of the question,
that I was to be debarred from any argument which
bore upon that point. But I do not know that 1
said anything that ought to be considered as offensive.
(Loud c)teers.) I have often heard them ; and in this house,
when queetions relating to the Church of England have
been discussed; and I say that while no huu. member
should use expressions giving pain to the feelings of others,
I don't see why expressions should be suppressed, or why

a comparatively harmless act, though in an num-
ptr manner? But it had been said, on bringing
forward this bill, that it was an innocent bill, a harmless
bill, a mild measure, and the Solicitor-General had laid
great stress on this point. Ile (the Solicitor-General) had
said—. Why are you disturbing the peace of the country
as if we were about to revive the penal laws?" but he (Mr.
Osborne) believed it was the first step towards the revival
of the penal laws. Because there was no provision for
hanging or disembowelling a priest, the measure was not the
less penal. Ile gave due credit to the noble lord
J. Russell) for expunging some of the ob-
jectionable clauses of the bill. Ile held, however,
with Lecke' that all religious creeds should be allowed
to follow their own course if they did not interfere
with the well being of society. He would implore the noble
lord to go oue step further, and omit the preamble
altogether. (Laughter and " Year, hear.-) Hon. gen-
tlemen could not tail to have observed that the sum total
of the speeches in favour of the bill hail been with one or
two exceptions unmitigated vituperation of the Roman
catholic religion. Ile (the Solicitor-General) bad pro-
fessed to be greatly alarmed at the introduction of
the canon law, and he (Mr. Osborne) had at the
time seen several hon. gentlemen shrugging up their
shoulders at the idea. What was the canon law, but
the mode of discipline of the Roman catholic church ? It
existed iu Ireland, and still existed. He (Mr. Osborne) had
been astonished to hear hon. refer to the bull,
- introduced

A large number of petitions 4wift been peesentcd,
Mr. ItEYNOLDS begged Inman seeing the Secretary
to the Treasury in his place, to mike the usual motion that
the house, at it. rising, do adjourn till Monday mat.
Mr. MOORE inuuediately rose and said that he would take
advantage of this caution, and before the house proceeded
to its regular business, to call the attention of the Speaker
to a subject full of painful recollections. What he had
urged last night was this—that to speak, not merely
with irreverence, but with a levity almost amounting
to indecency, of a sacred name which all generations
of Christians called •• blessed," ought not to be per-
mitted in any assembly professing Christianity. (Loud
thesis.) It could not be contended that the
offensive expressions on the ``,art of the hon. member for
West Surrey applied merely to what he called "false
miracles- anal ••abutuinahle impostures," for there was a
decent a. well as an indecent mode of making such refer-
ewes. He (Mr. Moore) appealed to any hon. gentleman
who might question the circumstance whether, if such
allusions, instead of having been made to the mother
of God, had been made to the mother of princes
in this country (whom might God defend from
indignity anal insult), the interference of the house
would not immediately have checked such profanation.
(lieu, hear.) What he had further urged was this, that
the etprv.i.ons which the hon. member for West Surrey
had not M sitated to make use of, and which he (Mr. Moore)
would imitate the right hon. leuenart the member fur Ripon
in re fusing to sully his lips with repeating, in reference to
certain communities of Christian ladies dedicating their

-. gentlemen
me iota be jestriined, when discussing the question, from Io crena elomini, and say that it had never been
mks anty pint or argument that is necessary to the do- into Ireland. But how did this bull affect the canon law ?
=1 dour opinions. (Cheers.) As boo. gentlemen were aware, under the vicarseapostolie,
BERKELEY trusted the house would bear all that was vexatious in the canon law existed at that mo-
ld* him fur a very short time, as the hem. member fur merit. At that moment a priest could, under the canon
Dublin had stated in distinct terms that the statement put law, be suspended by the vicars-apostolic, without any
before the house be the bun. baronet the member for the reason being assigned. It had been asked who called for
Daiversity of OrifUrel, founded on a statement by a relative this movement on the part of the Pope ? It was an ha-
d was not a mistake, but that that statement was portant question, and one easily answered. The Roman
a Shohood He would Silt'. if that Craven Berke ley to whom catholic laity had called for it, the priests had called for
iht Ms. member refivreti had had a seat in that house, the it, not as an insult to the
_people of this country, but as a
Wm. member would not have dared to make—(Omer)— protection to themselves. Honourable gentlemen ought to
Oat amisertion. What the hoe. member had stated was know that vicars apostolic were the mere agents of the Pope,
without foundation. whereas the bishops were not so, but were prime ministers
Yr. REYNOLDS denied having used the word false- in their own sees. (Hear, hear.) In reading a very re-
flood. He did not say that the object of the hun. and markable pamphlet by Mr. O'Dwyer, he (Mr. Osborne) had
gallant admiral's brother in going to the convent was the met with this very extraordinary statement—that Mr. Pitt
money. es Oh, oh," and laughter.) Ile had merely said in 1799 suggested to Cardinal Erskine the propriety of doing
that he thought--and he thought so still—that that formed away with vicars apostolic and creating British bishops.
lan ingredient in his object. (" Oh, oh.") (Ikar, hear.) Surely they ought not to dissent from what
Lord ARUNDEL and SL RREY informed the honest Mr. l'itt thought constitutional. Lord Lyndhurst had said
that a petition upon this subject had been brought into the that if we allowed doctrine and discipline of u religion to
Court of Chancery, and was appointed for hearing on be carried on, it should be permitted to be carried
Retorday. It would be well, therefore, not to discuss the on properly; and how, he (Mr. Osborne) asked, could
matter now—(hear, hear))—or the case might be prejudged the Doman catholic religion be. carried on properly
baste it was heard. (Hear, hear.) I without bishops, it being an episcopate church ? The noble
Sir B. HALL said he should avoid making soy allusion lord (Lord J. Russell) in a discussion on the state of Ire-
whatever, as he otherwise might have done if he had nut' land had said that it was " a foolish prohibition " which
been informed of what was likely to take piker to-morrow declared that the Roman Catholic bishops should not be
in the Court of Chanetry in the ease of Miss Talbot. But allowed to take: the titles of their respective dioceses. Why,
he must say one thing, and call the attention of the house if the noble lord thought it a foolish prohibition, did he
to a matter of great importance. The statement of the bring in this measure to prevent Roman Catholic bishops

Wes is emir/ sod Piety, erTig ha. oh% sat is be thishatiul in
a simmtbly of Eaglisit gentkinea. (Cheers.) And he
etwilheatly appealed in this matter, hot solely to the accom-
plished and cultivated minds of English gentlemen, but to
the intuitive perception of all Englishmen, against the
prurient fancies of obscene senility. and against all such
dAstarilly insinuations. (Loud cries of 4. Order.")
The SPEAKER—The boa. member has used a moot dis-
orderly expression. (Cheer..)
Mr. 3WQRE would say then against all such unmanly
insinuation..

The SPEAKER then formally rut the question, that
the house, ut its rising. do adjourn till Moutlay neat.
Sir G. CLERK hereupon interposed, and amid the noise
and cunfu•ion of the house, attempted to cull up Sir G.
Grey in reply to a question, very indistinctly heard, in re-
ference to the census.

Lord J. RUSSELL strongly urged members to avoid
irritating topics; and after a few words from Mr. J.
O'Connell and Sir R. Inglis, the subject appeared to drop,
for _ _

Sir R. INGLIS went on to ny that, leaving that
dummies. be won't' take the opportunity of referring to
umber bat din a kindred oubjcet. The hon. member for
Dalai(Mt. Saybolds) had given, the other night, a eoa-

being called by the it sees ? Ile (Mr. Osborne) feared that •
while they were having their attention turned to Home,
the most serious inroad had been made on religious liberty,
and when he rec.tlled to mind the language and the expres-
sions which had been made use of in that house
and elsewhere,- by those who called themselves
staunch vote teats, h.., was certainly punk(' to know
what a staunch pro;. slant was? Having cited passages from
royal coronation oaths and official speeches to prove that
persecution had been a feature in all religions, Mr.
Osborne said that another subject was how far
our universities conduced to the purity of that teaching.
vaT, was it not notorious that the doctrines of the Church
of England were as diverse almost as the parishes of the
Church of England i Was it not notorious that in one parish,
men hoard of the authority of the church, and in another they
were told of the 41-sufficiency of scripture. Go to l'imlico, and
they had auricular confession. Go to Liverpool, and a elergy•
'man there said confessors ought to be put to death. Talk of
intolerance! What happened the other day at Chichester?
Why, a respected dissenting minister was denied the rites
of sepulture in the churchyard, because he was a dis.senter
land a teacher of dissenters. (Hear, hear.) Why, all this
drawinr off of their attention to what was going on in foreign
countri ro ? They had to do with England. But who were
the laity and the clergy of England to look to ? The Bishop
of Oxfu:d, in answer to an address from Wickham (so me
understood him), denial that there were any tractarian
doe:trill., in the church. And what did he do? Ile ap-
pointed Dr. Pussy, who had been the great fisher of men
fur the tractarians, to a preachership at Oxford. Should
they go to the Bishop of Bath and %Veils, or should they
go to the metropolitan bishop, who was quite ready to
allow candle, provided they were nut snuffed ? (Laughter.)
The people of England would be more obliged to
the bishops if they would carry out the principles
of the Reformation and reform their own church.
And they would be still more obliged if the hon. baronet
the member fur Oxford, instead of raising a cry of stop
thief ut the usurpations of a cardinal, would overhaul the
university system. Was it not notorious that the whole of
our young ecclesiastics were indoctrinated with mediaeval
notions at Oxford ? What was Dr. Hampden persecuted
for ? Because he was not a believer in tra-
ditions. And_ what were the recommendations to

preferment ? The traetarian tendencies of the professors.
Only last week one was appointed to a parish, a gentleman
' of great learning, he dared say, but who laboured under the
' misfortune of having been suspended by two bishops fur
holding what were called tractarian tenets. This was the
state of Oxford, and here they were talking about Rome
when they ought to be reforming Oxford. He feared that
while Rome was attacking them in the front, Oxford was at-
tacking them in the rear; and he very much feared, not so
much the pastorals that issued front the Flaminian gate—
these might be insulting, but at least they were open—but
it was the publications that proceeded from Auriol and
Christchurch ; these were the pastorals that he dreaded, be-
cause he knew they were not only insulting, but insidious. It
was the enemies that were within, not the enemies that were
without, that he feared. Ile was strongly of opinion that pro-
tection, which was said to be the bane of agriculture, would be
the bane of protestantism too. The church—the act of parlia-
ment church—if she was fated to fall, would fall not from
the efforts from without, but from the efforts of those within.
He maintained that the noble lord would give Ito satisfaction
by this bill. Sooner or later he must moot this question of
the state of the church of England, and sooner ur later he
must reform with a high hand the universities of this coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) But if he assumed, for the sake of
argument, that the application of some measure on papal ag-
pression might be defensible in this country,defensible because
it was essentially a protestant country, and that the greater
portion of its inhabitants were protestauts, he wanted to
know from the noble lord what reason lie had for extend-
ing it to Ireland. Was that recommended by the right
hon. gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, whom he never
saw in his place ? (A laugh.) Was it recommended by the
hon. gentleman the Solicitor-General for Ireland, who was
always absent ? (Laughter.) Did they recommend this
measure for Ireland ? (Hear, hear.) \% by Ireland, up to
this moment, exhausted by misfortune, had been peaceful;
sectarianism was dying out. The only aggression in that
country was the aggression of the paid church of the miuurity.
But they were even tolerating that. They were more engaged
about poor rates than theology—speculating more about
potatoes than doctrines. But this measure had excited the
old theological hatred, and he would tell theta what more
it had done—it had given an additional and increased power
Ito the priests. Now he wanted to know under what pre-
text this measure had been extended to Ireland, 111111 who
hail recommended it ? There was a set of people who

wished it. These worthy gentlemen were thi! liish pro-
testant bishops ; but what statesman in his senses would
take the opinion of the Irish protestant bishops as to govern-
ing Ireland ? Was the noble lord ready to do away with the
system of national education and with the Maynooth grant ?
It was not peculiar to the Roman catholic, to object to edu-
cation. It was only since the laity insisted upon education
that the clergy were willing they should have it. And,
therefore, when he saw Roman cathulic ecclesiastics obct
to education of a particular sort lie was not surprised. But
the noble lord said a Roman catholic prelate told hint ho
objected to education unless it was based upon a certain
theory. That was not peculiar to Roman catholic.. Mr.
Sewell, the late professor of moral philosophy ut Oxford,
published a book on Christian morals, in which he said
it was impassible for any one to attain to the knowledge
of any science unless he was well acquainted
with theology: he said they might expect to find
the figure of the cross all over the world, and
that he should not be surprised to find that all mathe-
matical figures were reducible to this element, a simple
column with lateral processes. Another passage was equally
strong. The author stated that he believed the geologist
deeply impressed with the mysteries of baptism would
not have accounted for the formation of the globe
by the action of fire and water. (A laugh.) What
baptism had to do with geology, he (Mr. Osborne) did
Rot know. But this was only a sample of what people
ix their own church were teaching; and when the
noble lord said the Roman catholic, would not allow
anybody to educate their yonth but themselves, he should
vmember that neither would the protestant clergy. And
when the synod of Thurles was condemned for its proceed-
ing with regard to the "Godless colleges," it shuuld be
remembered that it was the hon. baronet the member for
the University of Oxford who first gave them that ap-
pellation. Then the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Wiltshire, alluded to the example of the dissenting
ministers, and said they joined the Anti-corn-Law League,
and took part in it. He might have come nearer home. Pro-
bably it was not convenient fur that aide of tho house to
mention this subject, but he held in his hand a protest of
the bishops of Ireland against national education. They
said it was with the utmost reluctance—they always said
so—that they felt themselves obliged to protest against the
plan. But were they content with protesting ? By no
means. No clergyman had even a chance of getting pre-
ferment who was favourable to national education ; he was
excluded from all the rank and emolument, of his profession,
and he once heard a noble prelate call these schools devil's
whouly The hon. baronet called the colleges Godless col-
leges, but the Bishop of Cashel coaled the schools devil's
schools.—[A Voice: A catholic bishop ?]—No ; Roman
catholic bishops never made these violent speeches. Here
es the speech of a bishop in receipt of some 5,0001. a year,
ith great patronage, with a small congregation. (Laugh-
t.•:.) This bishop said, speaking of the national school., it
was a hopeful feature of the times that out of 2,000 clergy-
men 1,500 were against them. They were not afraid to
stand out in defence of the truth, and against
the mock liberality of blinded measures of the present
government. (Laughter.) But after all this vitu-
peration of Roman catholic', he asked the house and
he asked the country what did they propose to do ? Had
they any objection. to make them good subjects because
they could not make them indifferent protestants ? He
asked them were they going to endanger the state because
they could not enlarge their church? The real bishops
of Ireland were your I.lr. M'liales and your Dr. Cullen.,
not Italian monks. That was not a wise expressiun to pro-
ceed from the treasury bench, and from a law adviser of
the crown. (Cheers.) It would be better if he turned his
attention to the Italian monks who lived at Oxford. But
he perfectly agreed in a sentiment by the hon. and learned
it( ntleman, the member for Plymouth. In that luminous
speech of his, he said the state was indebted to all reli-
gams that inculcated morality and obedience to the laws.
lie opposed this bill because he thought it founded ou
bad policy ; hut, above all, he opposed it on true protest-
ant grounds, because it trenched upon the principles of the
reformation. Ile opposed it because in his heart he believed
it trenched upon the right of the exercise of private judg-
ment. Cheers.)
Mr. ISAILLIE COCHRANE charged the whole no-
Popery agitation upon Lord John Russell, but demanded
whether, sometime previously to the publication of the Dur-
ham letter, his lordship had not expressed to the Bishop of
London his opinion that the Popish aggression was of no
consequence whatever? The ribaldry which this agitation
had occasioned against the catholic religion was disgusting.
Complimenting the eatholics for their forbearance under
revere provocation, he announced that, having protested
against the tone which had been adopted in reference to
their religion, he should vote fur the second reading of the
asap

Mr. C. FORTESQUE opposed the bill, though aware
he should vote against the excited, though transient, feel-
ing of the majority of the country, in whose movement he
saw much to blame and to condemn. If the bill would not
a. he believed, effectual for good, it would be effectual
for much evil. The act of the Pope must be judged by the
maxims of the 19th, not the 16th century. To say that an
ecclesiastical act was an invasion of the crown was a pure
anachronism. Ile admitted that there had been a real ag-
gronion by the Pope upon the church of England, but it
was so entirely spiritual that parliament and the state could
take no cognisance of it. The bill, he thought, was founded
upon false principles of church government, and was likely
to do the deepest injustice to Ireland.
Mr. ClllLDsupported the bill, but without entering into
its intrinsic meits.

3lr. GOULD said, if there had been an aggression, it was
not political, but an aggression upon the church of Eng-
land, who had no right to complain, since she avowed that
she was antagonistic to Rome. For this reason, and because
he considered there had been no insult intended or perpe-
trated, be should vote for the amendment.
Mr. W. J. FOR said he had no intention of entering
into the general question, but wished merely to give his
rea,on for his own vote, and to point out one or two fallacies
that had been very extensively put forward. The principle
on which he should vote against the bill was this—that it
was sot merely an abridgment of toleration as at present
enjoyed by Roman Catholics, but an infringement on that
great principle of religious liberty towards wnich the legis-
lation of this country had steadily tended for 130 years.
(lieu.) This was a principle which could not be abridged,

in any sect or church, not even in the most obnozione, or
those which might have given the greatest provocation—
, (and he by no means denied that great provocation had
been given in this instance;, without also damaging the
position, and invading in come measure, directly or
indirectly, the rights of all other non-estehlished acct.,
churches, or deneminatious. (Hear, hear.) This hill was an
interference with the int. rnal organieatiou of a non-esta-
blished church. With an established church they had a right
to interfere. An established church bartered something of
its Christian liberty for power, emolument, and influence.
It thereby invited the state to interpose in its regulation,
and to make such arrangements as it thought Et. With
non-established churches, the principle of religious liberty
being admitted as the mundetion of legislation, the state
had no such concern ; and this measure teuded in principle
to invade the rights both of catholic and mite stant non-
conformists. The fact that it did so had appeared very
promptly—he referred to the ease of the Scotch episco-
paliau dissenters. The government, in its hot pace to shoot
Its arrow at popery, immediately found that it had wounded
episeopalian dissent in Scotland, and there was a Mit.
feesion of this in the announcement that a clause would
be introduced when the bill was in committee, exempting
that particular dissenting chord. from its operation—a con-
cession which was altogether fatal to the character of the
bill. (Hear, hear.) This, a strung ease in itself, had some
remarkable points of coincidence with the case of
the Roman =holies. The Scotch bishops belonged •
to a dissenting community, for such they uudoubteely were
in that country ; they had the episcopal title which it had
been contended, especially by the Solicitor-Gentral, was a
civil as well as a religious designation—they held a terri-
torial distinction. Whet, then, had they to urge in favour
of exemption from the operation oflthis bill more than ca- ;
tholies had to urge. They said, in their petition, that they
hod these territorial designations from the necessity of
describing the limits within which they respectively exercised
their episcopal functions,. This was not peculiar to a
Scotch bishop; it belonged to bishops everywhere. A
bishop was an overseer, he oversaw somebody some where—
(hear, hear)—and how could it be known what plum be •
overlooked but by a dewription which had reference to ter-
ritory ? The Scotch bishops further urged that in this, use
of the ancient names of sees there had been no idea of as-
suming temporal rank. This, ton, the catholies might
urge ; rind if temporal rank and its ordinary accompani-
ments had been enjoyed by the catholic bishops in Ireland,
that had been the work of the government there, rather
than of the catholic Wilma themselves. The Scotch
bishops added that the use of ouch territorial dot riptions
was necessarily implied by diocesan episcopacy ; and this,
in their case, was rendered illegal by the bill under a heavy
penalty. They recognised no authority which could dis-
pense with that episcopal system, which they absolutely be-
lieved to be of apostolic institution. The [catholic bishops
pleaded apostolic institution also ; they derived their descent
from the same source ; and they had a right to the full benefit
of this plea. The arguments in the petition of the Scotch
bishops established three pollee i-1 he moral necessity of
territorial titles to the episcopal office—that such titles did
not imply the assumption of temporal jurisdiction—and
that they did not imply the assumption of spirituel juris-
diction beyond their own communion. it was ar-
gued that a catholic bishop claimed absolute dominion over
all the persons within the district describesi as his diocese,
and when this was resented as an aggression, he mud ask
whether in repelling it it was to be undenterel that the
church on whose behalf it wee repelled claimed such juris-
diction for itself? Because, if it did, there were millions
in this country who would alike protest against the
episcopal authority over them either of catholic or pro-
testant bishops. (Hear, hear.) But the case of the
Scotch bishops was nut the only one in which this measure
bore upon other elesees of nonwonforming religionists in
this country besides the Roman catholies. Whet was to
be done with the methodists? Their euin•rintenelente of
Lancashire, Stnffordshire, and so on, were as much at
variance with the spirit of the law as if they were called
bishops. Was the law to be evaded merely by trans-
lating "bishop" into another language, or taking a
synonymous term with a different derivatiuu ? If evasion
were so easy, what was the measure worth as against the
catholies ? If evasion was not to IX` allowed, what was the
condition of the methodists ? They were exposed to the
brunt of this measure. Besides, the title of " bishop"
was no sect or church monopoly; it Wll4 a common Chris-
tian inheritance. (Hear, hear.) There might arise within
this country, and circumstance, in the present state
of the established church did not put it beyond the limits
of probability, a free episcopal church, ns a five
presbyterian church
Lad ;distil in Scotland. (Hear, hear.)
In that case the aasumptian of the episcopal title, and by a
;necessary result, no the Scotch bishops said, of some terri-
torial description with that title, would arise, here ; and
I such a church, even b. fore its origin, would have the ban of
the law upon it. Thus the measure attacked, on one hand,
the most ancient of Christian churches, and on the other
that which might exist as a new Christian church ; and,
though the right were latent, it was one which no hotly of
Christians ought to be displaced from the posseesion of.
(Hear.) All Christians felt they had a right to use this title.
It had even been matter of consideration with different
dissenting bodies whether their preachers should not adopt
it. The Moravians (lid use the title ; they had bishops
with a foreign origin, appointed at a city on
the continent. The methieliets in America used
the title; and in all churches, however small in
numhers or poor in circumstances, there was the
right of calling their minister, bishops, if they.eltaeed, in-
stead of pastors—a right which they inhented from a
higher law than any a hidi that house could make—a right
with which it was not fitting that the laws made by that
house should interfere. (War, hear.) It had been argued
and denied in that discussion, strongly on both side,, that
an episcopate was a ;onion of the natural development of
the Roman catholic religion, that it belonged to the tolera-
tion of that religion, and was implied in the recogaition of
catholicism as a religion at all. Ile believed this to be the
case. All questions of foreign power and divided allegiance
he held to belong to the discussions of two-and-twenty years
ago. (Hear, hear.) That the l'ope was either a prince or
is foreigner was an accident ; it was not essential to the
catholic religion. He would be l'ope equally it' he were'
deposed, or if he were a British subject. (Hear,
hear.) This was a mere accidental connexion with his
spiritual character, which ought to le thrown out of ac-
count altogether, us we threw out of account the foreign
origin of many men who had founded sects and churches,
earned a great name, and exercised extensive influence in
countries with which they had nothing to do. The metho-
dists in America übeyed John Wesley, though he was a
foreigner. There were Wets in this country which obeyed
Zinzenderf and Swedenborg, though they were foreigners.
Christianity overrode nationality. It had done so from the
very first. But the full development of its priesthood,
through all its gradations, was more essential to the ca-
tholic church than it could be to any other church : for this
simple reason: catholice took the dogmas, the facts, the
precepts of religion from their sacerdotal authorities—
(hear, hear)—protestante took, or professed to take, theirs
from the New Testament. (Hear, hear.) The priesthood
was the eatholic's living testament, his incorporate Bible;
and to interpose between him and the eh:velum:mut of that
priesthood, came to much the same thing as would inter-
position between prutestants and the Bible. (Hear,
hear.) Such an episcopate bad always been held neces-
sary. It was said that under vicars-apostolic the catholic.
had all the provisions which could possibly be needed
for their various religious duties. They thennelves
must lee the judges of that. (heir, hear.) And it was the
fact, the historical fact, that they never had Icon satisfied
with that arrangement of vicars-apostolie—that there always
had been, from the very first, a craving after an episcopate.
(Hear.) Dr. Vowles Short, now bishop of St. Asiph, in
the fifth edition of a work of hie, published in IS-1i sub-
sequent to his appointment to the Ilse he now held, ;aid—
" Ireland has Roman catholic biehope of her own, who arc
independent of Rome, as far as Roman ( etholiee can
he; and the members of that communion in Eng-
land, have much reason to complain that they
have never had an episcopal government." The ne-
cessity of an episcopate was felt by every church
which had had episcopal origin, which had enjoyed the in-
stitution, and looked upon it as of scriptural origin.
The Lad heard of countries being mapped out ecclesias-
tically; but the Bishop of Oxford, in his "History of the,
Episcopate in America," had prefixed to it a Inv of the
United States, in which the whole of that great country
from sea to sea was marked and partitioned by dotted lines
iuto Anglican dioceses. (Hear, hear.) A sophism which
had prevailed very much in that debate, commencing
with the able speech of the noble lord in intruducieg the
bill, had been to take all the enormities of u priesthood,
from the dark ages to the present time, and ascribe them
all to the Roman catholic priesthood peculiarly. The noble
lord had traced the offencesof the priesthood and priestcraft
down to the Reformation ; there:the line divided, and he had
only taken one portion; had he pursued the other, he
would have found most sanguinary and Wrociuus acts. (Hear.)
The fallacy was in ascribing to one priesthood in particular
what belonged to priesthoods in general. All the priest-
hoods of all religions, in all countries and ages, had been
ambitious, grasping, requiring to be kept in check, showing
their bad qualities when they were dominant, and some-
times doing much to balance the account in the eye of the
historian by their devotion to beuignant works, to kind-
ness, and to charity, through great privation, and when
they were in poverty, as had been remarkably the case with
the Roman catholic priesthood of the sister country.
The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) appeared angry with the
Roman catholic clergy because they discouutenanced the ,
proposed system of national education ; but, at the same
time, where were there such advocates of the system of;
national education as the Roman catholic clergy of. Ireland
—three-fourths of whom were in favour of it, though the
great majority of the protestant clergy of that country were
opposed to the evdem ? (Hear, hear.) The consequence
was that thousands of children in that cuuutry were enjoy-
ing the blessing of education. (Hear, hear.) lie (Mr.
Fox) believed that in many instances the catholic clergy
were opposed to education, and sought uedue control over
it; but that was the common tendency of every priesthood.
He did not think the petitions against papal aggression had
much to do with the bill before the house. (Herr.) Scarcely
any class of persons in that house, even amongst those
who were supporters of the bill, had spoken iu the debate.
(Hear, hear.) How many supporters of the bill had spoken I
in the debate l . (Hear, hear,) Scarcely any ; and those
who were prepared to vote fur it would do so nut because
they liked it. (Hear, hear.) In fact the measure found
favour with none ; it went too far for ionic, and not far
enough for others. (Hear, hear.) lu fact, th: mean
required by the country was something that would check
the progress of popery, that popery which was believed by
some to be dangerous to civil and religious liberty, and by
others to be fatal to the salvation of men's souls. (Cries of
" Hear, hear," from the protectionist benches.) Ile
respected the feeling, though he did not coincide'