The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-15 00:00:00

in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion made himself an ag-
gression on our protestantiam, because they had
had a sort of Downingostreet divinity— (loud laugh-
ter)—given them. He (Mr. Gibson) was himself
a member of the state church, and he did not
profess to be able to deliver off.hand this sort of
opinion as to what the doctrines of the church ought to be
or what they were. (Laughter.) But the noble lord, talk-
ing of protestantisrn and of private judgment, had been able
to point out what was superstitious. (Hear, hear.) He
(Hr. Gibson) wondered how he (Lord .1. Russell), not being
an authorised and infallible expositor of evangelical truth—
(laughter)—could undertake to propound such a subject. The
letter of the noble lord had not been a private communication;
it had been a proclamation fromthe papal chair in Downing-
street —(laughter)--saying what their religion ought to he.
This looked very like an aggression. (Continued laughter.)
1 But the other day the question of baptismal regeneration
had been referred to an authorised tribunal, to ascertain
whether that doctrine of the church received in a

. .
particular way was an orthodox one. The result
had been, that it could not be decided what the
doctrine of the church wax. (Laughter.) Seeing
that an authorised tribunal in this country had such
extreme difficulty in discovering the doctrines of the church,
he (Mr. Gibson) said it was boldness, he did nut undertake
to may commendable boldness, but it argued great moral
courage in the noble lord to give forth a proclamation to
the effect that certain doctrines were superstitious—(hear,
hear)—leuvino it of course to be inferred that the doctrines
so characterised or not particularly alludes! to by the noble
lord were sound doctrine. (Hear, hear.) Supposing it
were right to make this prod:unation of divinity to the
country, and he (Mr. Gibson) must say that be
doubted the policy of it, they might have prime ministers
issuing proclamations denouncing other things as supersti-
tious. If the prime minister were a unitarian, he might
undertake to write from Downing-street that the doctrine

of the Trinity was not sound. (Hear.) Suck a course might
lead to what he (Mr. Gibson) considered to be a great na-
tional evil. (Hear.) The letter of the noble lord (Lord J.
Rumen) had originated a movement, be that movement
great or small; and the larger portion of that letter wag
occupied in condemning l'useyite doctrines and practices.
(Hear, hear.) They were called on to pass this law
against their Roman catholic fellow subjects on the
ground that they had bishops appointed in the
only way that bishops could be appointed for
them—by the Pope; because these bishops had districts as-
signed them in the usual way, and hosauge these bishops had
taken the only reasonable course they could take and hail
called themselves bishops of the districts in which they la-
boured. (Hear, hear.) How had the letter of Cardinal
Wiseman been addressed? Had it been addressed to the
inhabitants of the United Kingdom. No; it had been
addressed to "the clergy and the faithful," which, in the
understanding of the terms, could not he conceived as'
meaning anything but that he assumed that jurisdiction due
to him in reference to those who submitted themselves vo-
luntarily to his authority. A good deal had been made of
the word " govern" in the pastoral letter of the Pope,
but he (Mr. Gibson) contended that that word should
not frighten them. It was in the usual style of such
documents, and the word was constantly used without
meaning that temporal governing to which the noble lord
had alluded. Ile (Mr. Gibson) asked if they were to pre-
vent dame catholic ecclesiastics from being called by the
names of the districts in which they were to have their
spiritual jurisdiction over Roman catholies ? They could
not avoid having intercourse with the Pope. They could
not prevent papal bulls and writings from reaching this
country. They allowed these things, and they allowed the
unrestricted appointment of bishop.. But they were very
much alarmed when these bishops took the names of those
places in which, for convenience sake, they must he sup-
posed to have particular jurisdiction. (Hear, hear.) Some
hon. gentlemen, however, would not allow unrestricted in-
tercourse with the lope; and, although the penalties were
repealed, yet it was held to be a misdemeanour at common
law fur a Roman catholic to have intercourse with the paled
see. (Hear.) They were going undoubtedly to narrow
the liberty which they gave to the Roman catholic when
they passed the Emancipation Bill, if they agreed to this
act. There could not be the slightest doubt that this rule
of law, at least, was certain—that all penal statutes were to
be construed strictly. That being so inasmuch as there was
a penalty of 1001. which applied only to the assumption of
titles which were already enjoyed by the dignitaries of the
established church, it appeared to him perfectly obvious
that the assumption of other titles did not come under
the statute, and therethro they were by this bill taking a
deliberate step in a retrograde direction, with a view to
narrow the liberties which they gave to their Roman ca-
tholic fellow-subjects when they passed the Emancipation
Bill. (Hear, hear.) No ground—no reasonable ground
had been assigned for this act; fro, although they hail been
told so much about the supremacy of the crown, he must
take the liberty of telling the noble lord rind the gentle-
men who had used that expression so much that he
knew of no supremacy in the United Kingdom
but the supremacy. of the law, and if the law had not
been broken it was impossible that the supremacy of the
crown should have been violated. If, then, it were not
denied that the assumption of titles was in accordance with
; law, and no gentleman who had spoken from authority had
ventured to assert the illegality of anything, email the
bringing in of papal bulls, and did not apply to the as.
gumption of titles, why were they to he continually hearing
these eternal complaints that the supremacy of the crown
had been violated, the rights of the established church in-
fringed, and the independence of the nation attacked ? It ap
peered to him that these expressions amounted to little better
than clap-traps, if ministers were not able to my that the
assumption of titles, which was the matter in hand, was a
violation of the law. (Hear, hear.) lle could he no party
whatever to impose penalties upon Roman eatholies for ear-
-1 tying out their own voluntary ecclesiastical arrangements,
I supported by their own voluntary subscriptions, not inter-
: firing with the rights and liberties of any person in these
I dominimis ; and he could not for the life of him understand
how those who supported the voluntary system among
the dissenters could reconcile it with their consist-
ency to be the advocates of thisbill. (Hear.) Before he sat
down—fur they should have many opportunities of discussing
that measure—he would take the opportunity of expressing
his regret that in the speech of the noble lord he should,
with a view of preparing them for that bill, have told them
of various acts of Roman catholic ecclesiastics in Ireland
and elsewhere calculated, undoubtedly, to prejudice the
mind and to rather induce men to come to rather a hasty
and not a very just decision upon the matter that was be-
fore them. To tell them of the interference of the
Roman catholic ecclesiastics in Ireland in education was to
tell them what wait verflittle to the purpose. If the noble
lord was prepared to raise the question, which was nothing
more than that of secular or religious instruction, he (Mr.
Gibson) was prepared to go into it with him; but when the
noble lord was himself a supporter of the mixing of secular
and religious instruction—when the noble lord had himself
in that house advocated the interference of clergymen of
the established church and of religious teacher,' of various
denominations as an essential clement in public education, he
did not think it either fair or reasonable that the noble lord
should attempt to raise a prejudice in their minds against
these Roman catholic ecclesiastics for interfering with edu-
cation in Ireland. Why, what was this case of interference
in Ireland ? At the Synod of Thurles, 13 Roman catholic
bishops advocated the non-separation of secular from reli-
gious instruction, and 12 Roman catholic bishops, as he un-
derstood, were not against the separation of secular from
religions instruction. Traduce him, then, 12 protestant
bishops of the established church, who would advocate the
separation of secular from religious instruction. (blear.)
He only regretted that in the course of the spech with
which the noble lord favoured them as to the great im-
portance of bringing in this bill, the only two authorities
that bore on the matter in hand were two reverend gen-
tlemen. A large portion of the speech had refer-
ence to the proceedings of Roman catholies in vari-
ous parts of Europe, matters undoubtedly of great
interest, but as far as the matter in hand was concerned the
only authority the noble lord gave them was that of two
ecclesiastic, of the established church. The noble lord
mentioned the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and he said the Bishop of London had sug-
gested that there ought to be legislation to prevent the
assumption of these titles ; he said that that
was the answer which the bishop gave to one
of the addresses, which was presented to him, that
they ought to prohibit the assumption of any titles de-
rived from any place in the United Kingdom. And there-
fore, said the noble lord, he bad agreed with that suggestion.
(Hear) The noble lord also said, that when he informed the
Archbishop of Canterbury that it was not intended to insti-
tute a prosecution, his grace replied, that he did not expect
the government would institute a prosecution, but he did
expect that some legislation should take place on the sub-
ject. Now these were the only two authorities, and, with
due submission, he did not think that these were the gen-
tlemen to apply to on this subject. Dr. Blornfield, who was
in this elevated position, at his ease, surrounded with all the
pomps and vanities of the world, not exempt from the in-
firmities of our nature, and desiring to stand alone in his
glory, he confessed he did not think the proper sort of
son to be asked what sort of indignity was to be on
44' scr-
Dr. Wiseman. Nor was even Dr. Sumner, e Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. In considering how far the
bill which was proposed was calculated to promote the har-
mony of all classes of her Majesty's subjects, he hoped, if he
had understood the Attorney-General, there would be one
clause inserted in the hill before it was enacted into a law.
He dared say hon. gentlemen might have observed a clause
in bills to the effect that " this act may be repealed or
amended during the present session of parliament."
Now, he would put a clause in the bill proposed,
"and be it enacted that this act may he broken
with impunity during the present and all future
sessions of parliament." (A laugh.) For he was
quite persuaded, however much the noble lord might have
changed his opinions as to the puerility of legislating
against titles, and the total impossibility of preventing
these communications with Rome, he was so far persuaded
in his own mind that their law would be nugatory for any
good purpose, and only calculated to cause great im-
itation, and that it was well described by the honourable
member for Buckinghamshire as a piece of petty persecution,
that he for one, if he never gave another vote in that house,
would use his utmost endeavour to prevent the passing of
this bill. (Cheers.)
Mr. CUMMING BRUCE remarked (in reply to a state-
ment made by Mr. Oswald in a previous debate), that if
Scotland had not partaken in the agitation, it was not that
Scotchmen lacked sympathy with the English protestants,
but because they felt secure that their southern brethren
could repel the insult without assistance. With respect to
the ministerial measure, he feared that it would be unsatis-
factory and insufficient. He suggested that the bill should
be invigorated, the introduction of papal bulls made pinal,
and all monkeries prohibited in this country.