The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-13 00:00:00

these titles, and attempting by that assumption to set up
their power and authority against the power and authority
of the crown of England. I should say that in that case,
whether it he iet England or in Ireland, the crown oti.4ht
to use means to enforce the law. (Hear, hews) Sir, the
hon. and learned gentleman in arguing this case recited
what he called the false assumption. in the preamble to this
bill. (hear, hear.) He first referred to the enactment in
the act of 1829, and he said that that enactment had been
repealed by the Bequests Act. I own I was ansinisheil to
hear such a statement. Onl y imagine that the right lion. gentle-
man the member for Ripon acting under the direction of Sir
Robert Peel, then Prime Minister of the country, should
have introduced a bill which repealed an important part of
the act of 1829, the relief act, by waich ahem 'Wenn
catholic, have seats in parliament and enjoy Oleos, and
that he should never have mentioned to the Hoes of Cern-
mons that he proposed to repeal an important part of that
act. It is impossible that he could have meant that, and
there are no words in the act introduced which at all
countenance such a supposition (Hear, hear.) The wools
were very carefully chosen; they aro not loose words, like
those which we find in a cemetery act passed afterwards,
and which I could wish were not allowed to slip through in
'an act of parliament. (Hear.) The words in the 13-quests
Act, enact introduced by Sir Hubert f'uel's government with
deliberation, speak of a " bequest in trust fur any arch-
bishop or bishop or any other person in holy orders of the
Church of Rome officiating in any district?' Those are the
words with respect to the bishops. Then with regard to
the clergy, the words are, "or having pastoral superinten-
dence of any congregation of person professing the Roman
catholic religion." Those worsts differ entirely from tho
phrase, " having jurisdiction over any diocese • ' they are
worts used in order to avoid any of those words which im-
ply authority, jurisdiction, and legal power. So much for
the first assertion of the hon. and learned gentleman. His
neat remark is, that we say it may be doubted whether the
assumption in the recited act extends to the assumption of
the title of any archbiahopor bishop of any see which is not
held by any archbishop or bishop of the catholic church. Now I
have heard a very learned lawyer start doubts on that subject.
I believe the general opinion of the profession of the law is
that the words do not include the case of persons taking the
titles of non-exisling sees; but at the same time, after we
have heard from the mouth of a very learned lawyer, a
doubt on that point, I think we were justified in asserting
that it may be doubted whether that is the law. Now, an-
other averment of the hon. and learned gentleman has refer-
ence to the words "an attempt to establish under colour or
authority of the see of Rome." Now, I believe, I am sure I
have heard from every lawyer whom I have spoken to on
the subject—that that is actually the law of this country ;
and I observe that the hon and learned member fur Mid-
hurst, in an amendment which he has prepared, does not use
the word., " be it enacted," hut the words, " be it declared,"
evidently considering that that is already, the law of the
country. Well, then, Sir I know not why the hon. and
learned gentleemm should state that there is any part of the
preamble of this bill which is not borne out by the law
and the facts of the case. The hon. and learned gentle-
man after having discussed the preamble of this bill, went
on to speak of the enactment itself, and said he considered
it a violation of religious liberty. He threatened us with
the anger which would be excited in Inland, and in strong
metaphorical language, he said that if this bill 'Mould pass
the oppression would be resented, and the people would
never sheathe their swords until they had got the better of
their oppressors. Well, Sir, I am exceedingly sorry that
members of this house, repreaenting, no ghat, a
feeling that exists in Ireland upon this sub-
ject, should consider this bill any violation of religious
liberty. But Idu nut think we are bound on that account
to part with a single particle of that authority which is in-
herent in the crown of England—(cheers)—or of that inde-
pendence which is inherent in the lanple of the United
Kingdom. (Loud cheers.) I know not what might lie the
consequence if we were to give way to these notions that
religious liberty will be infringed if we do preserve that
liberty, that sovereignty, must that independence. (Hear,
hear.) For my own part, I have no wish to exchange the
religious liberty that we shall all enjoy, that the Itennaii
catholic clergy will enjoy, after the passing of this bill, for
any of that kind of religious liberty which is enjoyed at
Rome. (Great cheering.) It is but the other day that we
were interned by oue of our ministers in Italy that
there was a person now lying in prison fur the
offence—the offence, of what? Of circulating an Italian
translation of the Holy Scriptures. lam not now speaking
of !tone; I an speaking or another of the states of Italy.
(Ironical cries of " Hear, hear," from Mr. Keogh.) The
hon. gentleman seems to think it a great triumph that it
was not at Rome. (Laughter.) Will he tell me that it was
not the influence of the Roman church that led to it?
(Hear, hear.) Will he tell me that it would be competent
to Italians to erect a protestant place of worship in Rome—
(hear, hear, and cheers)—to go freely to that place of wor-
ship, and to publish every day their opinions, showing the
protestant religion to be, according to their opinion, the
truth with retpeet to religious matters ? (Hear.) Why, they
could do nothing of the sort, and the hon. and learned
gentleman well knows it. Sir, I rejoice that we have still
the means of enjoying a religious liberty more real, MOM
actual, than that which the hon. gentleman could hope for.
(Hear, hear.) lan very glad that if I wish to learn the
art of reasoning I am not debarred from reading " Whate-
ley's Logic." (Laughter.) I rejoice that in this country
we are not subject to those prohibitions which at Rome aro
so common, and indeed so prevailing. (Hear, hear.)
Not wishing again to argue those parts of the
question on which 1 have had to trouble the house on ter-
mer occasions, but repelling the statement of the hon. and
learned gentlemen', that there is anything like persecution
in this bill, 1 must again aver that this is a political measure
directed tegairmot a political encroachment—(cheers)—and
that we will not suffer the name of religious liberty to be
prostituted fur the purpose of covering foreign aggressiou.
(Cheers.)

Mr. BRIGHT said he had observed almost all that
had appeared in the papers during the agitation of
this question, and he had nu hesitation in saying that as yet
there bad been nu logical definition of the injury that had
been inflicted on this country, and no agreement as to any
remedy which parliament could provide. After the noble
lord had written hi, celebrated letter he had three months
for quiet deliberation whether in Downing-street or Wind-
sor, and at the end of that three month' they had the noble
lord's speech, which was not about the Papal rescript, thu
real mutter in hand, but about various matters that had
occurred on the other side of the Channel. The noble lord
was now conscious of the difficulty, and could not withdraw
Ireland without overthrowiug the whole speech upon which
his legislation was founded. The noble lord objected to
the synod of Thurles. Ile (Mr. Bright) did not wish to see
such synods, or anything else that interfered with education,
but if the two churches were compared, they must be driven
to the conclusion that the protestant bishops and clergy
were quite as meddlesome in politics as the catholic, and
more especially upon this very question of national educa-
tion. Ile had, while in the south of Ireland, spoken to a
gentleman who win a county magistrate and a chairman of
a board of guardians, and that gentleman had said that the
established clergy had committed a great mistake in so uni-
versally rejecting the national schools, as they had by such
conduct thrown them wholly in the hands of the priests'.
(Cheers.? They should not then judge too harshly of the
synod of Thurles for taking' a different view of education
from them, more especially al at that synod the votes
were equally divided, more than could be said of the
established clergy either of Ireland or of England.
But the noble hard would have no bishops but his own
bishops, of whom hr was by turns the tyrant and the
vassal, while the bishops of Ireland, in whom the people
had confidence, were nut to have any opinion on this ques-
tion of education, or if they had they were nut to express
it. But the noble lord had nut been able clearly to define
the mutter uaon which he was going to legislate. Ile had
had to cite a great number of arta, to ganii:h with refer-
ences to history, and menaces from other countries, atilt°
make up what lawyers called a cumulative case, iti order to
establish even the slightest case for legislation. (Hear,
hear.) The noble lord admitted that the law had not been
broken ; he could not cite any case in which the catholic
bishops of Ireland had broken the law. He (Mr. Bright)
had thought that the noble lord was going to admit that
as the law had not been broken' uu offence had
been committed, instead of which he was about to
ask for a stringent law to put down an offence which had
never been committed. (Cheers from the Irish members.)
There was one point on which the law has been broken,
and that was in the importation of the bull, but with that
offence the noble lord would not interfere. The language
of the l'ope was complained of as offensive, but had priests
in power ever used any other? The supremacy of the
Queen was, in the sense used by the noble lord, no better
than a fiction. There might have bean such supremacy
down to the times of James IL, but now there was
no supremacy but that of the three estates of the realm,
and the supremacy of the law. The Queen MSS the
chief of the established church, hut that church had not
been assailed either in its wealth or power, The Queen had
not the power of making Roman catholic bishops, and
therefore the making of them by the only power on earth
that had authority to make them was no invasion of the
prerogative of the crown. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
said that the Pope had ignunal the established church of
this country and had abolished the see of Canterbury. But
the Pope had always dune so, he looked upon the church of
England as an usurping church, pretty much an the church
of England looked upon congregations of dissenters. Did
not that church when appealing to the house on the plea
of religious destitution reckon up the population in
a district, and the number of church sittings, without
even taking into account the number of dissenting teachers,
or of dissenting places of worship ? (Hear, hear.) It was
thus that one church always treated another, and it was one
of the unfortunate proof+, that so much as they had had of
churches and of religious, the true spirit of Christianity had
made very little way amongst the churches of the world.
(Hear, hear.) He was nut one of those who thought there
was any strength in the argument which was used so often,
that bishops in ordinary were not necessary for the effec-
tual working of the Roman catholic church. He was no
friend to the bishop of any church. (Cheers, and
laughter.) la the case of the bishops, they were
governed by laws regularly enacted, while the vicars-
apostolic were controlled solely by the will of the
I pope who exercised as much power us he thought proper.
The difference was this, a vicar-apostolic was alone respon-
sible to the Pope and to his will whatever it might deter-
mine; but when a bishop in ordinary was appointed, ho
was relieved from the caprice—if he might au sat —of the
Pope, and subject alone to those portions of the canon law
that could be exercised in any country in accordance with
the permission of the civil law of that country. (Hear,
hear.) It was awned that the Roman catholicof this
country had suffered no grievance in being driven back
again to the rule of vicars-apostolic. He (Mr. Bright)
begged to ask the people of this country, whether
they would prefer to live under the ordinary consti-
tution of the country, administered by its recognised
tribunals, or under sonic special commission, with
some exceptional state of the law, where liberty might