The Express.
London, England, 1851-03-26 00:00:00

TITE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 26, 1851

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

.-------.-----7
ist
Colonies (endoreed as received in Downing-street of Mae 4th
January, 1851,1 and if no answer shall h hem :sent no
I
explain the cause of the delay." " And Fe eaff his att
tendon to certain inaccuracies in t ph ' no of the
said communication as laid before t litartawer Mr
their address of the 24th February, 1 1, and onleralo be
printed (No. 105,) on the 10th March, ROL" The hon.
baronet as about to enter into explanation regarding
fhis
questions, and his reasons for asking them; and woe reer-
ring to the despatches by which some years ago Roman
catholie bishops in the colonies were raised to a level of
dietinetioereepui44 ree-owispeolates there, and to the- rim
monstrance of the bishop of Sydney, when
Mr. sai
HAWES, in answer to the first question, d that
no answer had been returned to the despatch alluded to by
the hon. baronet, but he would undertake to say that
whenever one was sent, it should be laid upon the titbit.
With regard to any error', the copy laid before the howl
bad been printed from the copy of the bishop's letter, asells•
mitted to the home government by the governor of the
eslony. The first paragraph had not been printed as a
quotation, but the printed copy in the hon. baronet's hand
was an accurate transcript. With respect to the word
" not," it WWI a typographical error on the part of this
printer, and in the copy the government hail the wool
" not" was inserted. A corrected copy should be inmates
diately laid upon the table, and if there was • difference
between that copy and the copy the hon. baronet had, be ',
(Mr. Hawes) was not answerable for it.
CEYLON.—SIR EMERSON TENNENT.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER wished to ask the hon. geothermal II
the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether Sir Emmert
Tennent had returned to this country from the governorddp
of St. Helena of his own accord, or whether he had boss ,
recalled by the government in consequence of the ingots?
into certain affairs connected with Ceylon ?
Mr. HAWES said that Sir Emerson Tennent had come
to England in canseciuence of doestic affairs, and that his
arrival in this country was not connected with any public
inquiry whatsoever.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
In reply to Mr. Mrs-LIMOS,
Sir 0. GREY stated that the hill upon this subject
would shortly, he believed, be introduced into the other
house.
After a short conversation on a point of " iness,
between Mr. S. Berk. ley, the Speaker, and Mr. Humbuse, "
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the office of Master of the
Rolls was likely Treasury to be
whether ; he begged to ask the
First Lord of the any reduction of the
salary of 8,0001. was contemplated?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that when the office referred
to became vacant, the filling it up would be subject to any
alteration en the salary which parliament might think pro-
per. (Hear, hear.)
CHANCERY REFORMS.
Mr. HUME wished to ask when the house was to expect
the proposed plan of Chancery reform
The hon. gentleman's question was not answered.
ECCLESIASTICAL. TITLES ASSUMPTION SIL L.
On the order of the day being read for resuming the ad-
journed debate on this measure,
Mr. HUME rose ad inquired if the other matters which
abed On the paper would be taken up after the is4journed

HOUSE OF I.Oltl)S.—Tria4DAY, Mee.ru 25.
The Leese Cu seritteetk Wok his seat at five o'clock.
TUB OF ENGLAND IN THE COLONIES.
The Bishop of OXFORD asked a question of Lord Grey,
respeetina the legal Waled of the church in the colonies,
especially in Atntralie, and whether the statutery restrie-
tions wheli applied to the church at home were binding on
the church abroad.
Karl nr.Er replied that the positien of the Etigheh
church in the rolianiee was a question of cart importance,
but no complaint heal reached him frum any of the colonies
with rttpect to any grievance which was not capable of
removal by the colodial legislatures. It was quite true that
various questions, rather theoretical than practical, had
been suemated in the debate which took place on the sub-
jeet last year, so that when the resew came he really did
not know to what particular points to &dare's himself.
Ilader then• circumstances, he lead prepared • despatch to
the governor of New South Wales,
co
instruettng him to item.
a COMMilliOn compesed of Australian prelates, toconsider
the condition of the church in thew colonies. About the
same time intelligence, though not in an official shape, had
reached him, that the question was about to be discussed in
a 'yawl at Sydney. He therefore thought that no good
would molt from an inquiry into the subject in this coun-
try until the inquiries in the colonies hail terminated.
After Rome diecuesion, the Bishop of OXFORD observed
that be thought Lord (irey's reply unsatiefactory, especially
when be raid that no grievance had been brought under has
notice, for the Bishop of Van Diemen's Land hail sent an
arehdees in all the way to England to press the grievances
of the colonial church on the rovernment. The fart was
that the ("denial church, while it possessed none of the ad-
santagea of an establishment, was hampered by all those
restrict. whirle bound the free agency of the• church at
Lome, and one of the greatest evils of this penition was,
that it forced the bishops, in epite of thenseelees, to art in
eases of ilieipline as übeolutr autocrats without the forms
of law, beaten: by acting otherwise they would run the
risk of WM.; tried for libel.
Earl GREY said that the Bishop of Oxford hail memo-
derisive! him. Ile bad never eaul that there were no
grievant. ceimplaiawel of by members of the church in the
colonies, or that they were grievaneesi merely speculative.
What he said wee, that no grievance had been brought
wader notice from the colonies which was nut capable of
being remand by cabmen' legislation.
The matter then deemed.
ASSESSMENT OF TITIIES FOR POOR RATES.
The Ear: M A LMESID' It Y 'mid, en presenting tau peti-
tione from the clergy of the dioecee of Beth and N elle.
romplaining of the present system of aeeesing the tithes
and renschanti e fur poor rater, that the injustice of
which the I.ttitions complained apple equally to rent-
charges fur title 1 in the pee mien of lay iraproprietone
last year, with the sanetion of the government, a committee
Oat to consider the Rule, et of panahial assessments, and the
pnacipel elitticultits with which they had to deal Was in
censidt ring the mode of emceeing stock in trade, railway
property, and tithes. The manner of emceeing tallei Wag
unjust, end the principle was equally objectionable. The
report of the eommittee stated that tithe commutation
rent-eharee was generally wowed upon the real, known,
sad Wee value thereof ; whilst other property was WV.C.Sed,
on the estimate' value. 'I he tithe of the clergyman was
wowed to the per rate upon the actual amount paid,
which was an income tax on his property to the poor of
the. country. Ile was not a little astonished at the tom-
meneement of the meeeinn to hear hi. noble friend opposite
state that lee objection be the plan which he
(the Earl of Malmesbury) had prepaid was that pee
tee would tout like to pay a second income tax.
In the remaite of %Matra t, lUnaft, Wilt and Nor-
Pathhe hadascertained that the amount ofs, purr rates
paid by the clergy varied from 24. 2d. in the
pesad on their incomes. to 20 and even 30 per cent.
In Cannerthenshire. it awe raged la per cent. Lmakine at
the entelliow .if the Mecum a of the working clergy, it ea,
• shame that the per should he supported by them to
such
as extent. The pewees., the mortgagee, the funillielder,
the propene.? of mining property only paid poor rate a,
oreed oa their resielencee, whereon the clergyman we,
charged upon every farthing of hie 101-0104.. (hear, hear.)
It wag Nutlet to rentrmt, in regent to this questiou, the
rodent of the right rev. prelates of the church and the
winking clergy.. It was a contrast which it we.. undoubt-
edly not the altered of the right rev. pnlatee (they
net teeing sen.untalat• for it) to err prpetuated -which
viva emigre., to the church moil hurtful to the state. The
peculiarities of present politieel einumetantee, the position
of the government, and the slate of the other house of par-
liament, rewlertel it inexpedient and inileeel ueeleo to at-
tempt to force thin kulajtat on elmeideration at this period of
the semion, if indeed in sloe etwiiin at all. Ile would, there-
fore, content himself, fee the moment, in putting the ques-
tion to her Majedyes ministers whether they had any inten-
tion, in the r 'Maul their continuing her elaje sy'sreeponsible
advieers, to take any depe. in the attempt to remodel the law
in fraina t t, that great injustice which he had endeavoured
to
be Ar point
.7.ltibiehop of C ANTEItIH7RY, who was very indis-
tinctly heard, wee uualesetemel 0. say that he row simply for
the purpne of making a brief reference to the remarks of
the nettle earl as to the contreet, in regard I. this lineation,
lettween the positions of the prelates of the church and the
woe/king clergy. 'flee noble earl hail eaenitted that the
right rev. bench were, in no degree, neementable for that
mowed ; but at the saint' time, Wht 31 this dice uesism would
go to the puled, this eireunotame. might he forgotten, and
he (the Arehhishop of Canterbury) therefore thought it
right to say that is long as the law remained in ite present
date, clumping certain descriptisme of pel,ollal property
from contributing to the poor rates, or lung would thin cou-
trait, MD greatly Ana so pnaperly complaiued of, continue.
(Iles?, lever.) At the sanie time, it should be understood
that even at present hie right nv. lereth n were under
the oblieetion of plying intlinetly suit eircuitou.sly,
if not direetly and dietinetly, and that, of late years., the
*Wrest, piesenteel by the noble earl, hail Inv to rendered much
lane 1141,Alltaar1)114 to them. He was glut that the noble
earl had taken this subject in hand. and he trusted that it
would receive now, or at a future time. the attentive come-
aeration of the legisleture.
Earl GREY week' shortly answer the question put by
the noble not iris right honourabir trii red. the president
of the- poor law lisierd, hail undertaken to introduce mel-
ange, into the other house of parliament leaning reference
loth bathe law of settieMent and to the mixliticeticms in pa-
melee' peesentent. But it was impeseible to give the noble
earl any moon whatever to expect that this proposed
change in the law of aweetment would meet hie views on the
matures Ile (Karl tiny) would only further ray, that in
his opinion, as far an he understood hie noble friend, no
greater injury could ho dune to society in thee country than
to adopt thew views.
Loot VOItTNIAN had presided, laet evesion, over the
anaemia., appointed to investigate this eubjeet and be
mutt say. that be thought thee a most inopportune period,
considering thet landowners were generally reducing their
rents. for urging the propoition which had been suggested
by the noble earl (Malnteebury).
After a few words in verb/nation from the Earl of
Mei eteentser,
The Bishop of OXFORD said that it should be under-
stood that in the committee of led year be had made a
propeeition to the elicit, that the working t lergy had great
capon to complain of the operation of the present lew,
and that preposition had only been negative .1 in a large
ettneinittee by a majority of two. It bad been his opinion
then, and he contended still, that an equitable adjudication
--though the strict letter of the law of Elitabeth was not
oineemant with that view -would permit an exemption
of the clergy un account of their personal an mires.
After a few words from Lord Beattie:se, and, again,
from the Earl of NI elei ES lit ke.
Lord WODEHOUSE said their lordship, need not at
eeact enter upon the general merits of the plan suggested
ithe nuhle earl opposite `the Earl of alelinesbury), but,
at the proper time, when the question was brought before
the house, it would not be difficult to e eplein the
reasons why, in all probability, it would be found imprac-
ticable. In Scotland • somewhat similar plate hail been
tried fur a great number of sears and at length abandoned.
The Earl of HARDWICkE admitted that though there
might he individual cases in which • clergyman was ag-
grim eel, yet, generally speaking, he was in the same
situation an others who received a money income.
Tee petitions wen then ordered to lie on the table.
COMMONS INCLOSVRE BILL.
pin the motion of the Earl of Omelet r. this bill was
read a third time and passed.
Their lordships adjourned at seven o'clock.

debate.
The SPEAKER was understood to answer in the

affirmative.
A number of petitions against papal aggression were
then presented.
On Mr. WESTRZAO presenting some petition' from a
manlier of Wesleyan methodist congregations., praying for
" ii more seringent measure against papal aggreesion,"
Mr. HUME said be thought the hon. member (Mr.
Wellhead) ought to state whether the petitions were from
the old We.Ryan* or from the reformed body. (Laughter.)
Mr. WESTRE.\D said the hon. member (Mr. plume)
might Ink at the petitions and satisfy himself un the point.
(Continued laughter.)
The adjourned debate was resumed by
Mr. 801111017sE, who said that in yesterday evening
meeting the miljaurnment of the debate he had not done so
on any personal grounds, but because there had been a
general undentanding that several hon. member; of cored-
&ratite influence allied to deliver their opinions on the
stikjiet. lie had understood that the right hon. member
for the Univereity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and the hon. 1
member for Buckingharashire (Mr. Disraeli) were boll I
sunious to address the house. (11-ar, hear.) For this res.
sun he (Mr. Illibhouse) had moved the adjournment. The
more he had heard of this debate, the more lie had listened
I to the arguments :adduced, and the more time he had taken
Ito examine this question, the more was he fortified in the 1
conviction that this was not at all a subject for legislative
interference. (near, hear.) The arguments offered Ia
support of the Lill-that un insult hail been offered to the 1
Queen as first magistrate and suprenle head of the church,
and that her prerogative and the independence of the tuition
had lava ineaded-might be expressed by this logical
formula-the Queen is the fountain of honour; episcopal
titles are honours ; and nu one has a right to grant episcopal
title. in this country but the Crown. Dui a fallacy pervaded
this argument, in not separating the essence from the acci-
dent, and in confounding temporal with spiritual authority.
Originally, bishops were elected per &rum et pop!eltim ;
the crown gradually Requited a right in respect to their tem-
poraliti,e; but the Minnows of a bishop were still essen-
tially spiritual. If us, bishops were only minhetere of reli-
gion, their designation el ,noting an office rather than a
title. This was his grand übjeetion to a legislation against
names rather than thing', which was unworthy of that
i house and of a great nation. Mr. lloblemse then at-
tacked the subordinate :moment in support of the bill-
that the titles were derived from a foreign power,
and that the Pope interfered in temporal concerns,
and claimed to absolve subjects from their allegiance
-a doctrine which lie observed was reprobated by all
ltonein catholic.. lle maintained, on the authority of
1110 Latour, that tlw sanon law. which he vindicated from 1
the censures east upon it, was over-ridden by the law of the
land; and lee repressed his altouishment at au argument I
avowed in that lonia, as Well as out of doors that because
the Roinish church was intolerant we should' he intolerant I
too. If this bill were, as lord Palmerston hied said, a com-
plement of the Catholic Relief Act, it would carry the' pro-
vision, of that art far beyond its presumed policy ; and he
*tellingly urged the government to withdraw this, fatal ma-
mire.
Mr. PORTAL. in a brat speech, opposed the bill, which,
he believed, though utterly impotent for good, would be all
;emerged for coil; it would foment religious agitation, and,
while large enough to irritate Ireland, would not satisfy
England. Ile shared in the feelings of indignation at the
Pope's aggression, which was twofold-an ectleneetimil
aggression upon the rights of a church whose existence it
ignional, and a temporal aggression, by the interference of a
foreign prince in the internal affair of this country. With
respect to the fumes., it was not to the arm of the state
to which the church should look for defence; and the tem-
poral aggression I, ft this bill as before. If it VILLA illteWled
to legislate at all, it should be done effectually, and that
could only be ley re-adopting the unhappy principle, that
the recognition of that foreign power was an offence which
would be a reversal ut the great policy of civil and religious
liberty.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL challenged any lawyer in the house
to prove the spiritual supremacy of the crown front the
common law ; said it was of the very essence of the Roman
catholic religion to acknowledge the absolute power and
supremacy of the pope. The threats of ulterior measures
by the noble lord, he said, would not frighten the 'tenant
catholies from resisting this bill. Ile might storm and
thunder, pander to vile palmitin:l, and stir up religious ran-
cour ; they would still consider their bishops, in the noble
lord's own words. " bishops nevertheless."
Mr. LAWLESS, though a protestant, would resist this
needles.. insult offered to the Roman catholic clergy, be-
tween whom mud the laity there existed the strongeat sym-
pathy. What re:MM. he asked, was there for extending
the bill to Ireland ? Lord J. Russell had declared that the
term - mummeries••• in his letter referred to the Puseyites;
why, not, then, legislate against them, instead of Roman
catholic. F Mr. Lawless thought that the agitation upon
this question had been greatly etimulated by the public
I journals, and draw, a contrast-a painful one to him as a
protestant-between the language which had been recently
need by Ronan cathuent bishops and prelates of his own
church.
Mr. NICNTZ said the real question-from which the de-
bate had wandered-was this,-had the Pope committed as
aggression against the sovereign and people of this realm?
snit almost every member, not under the influence of the
Pope. earn sir J. Graham, had admitted that there had
been an impudent and :arrogant aggression. Theo, was this
country cow• to such a miserable pass that it must submit 001
1 forei.tu aggression? Ile had said upon a former urea-400,1
and he now repeated, that there was no Roman catholic 1
nation that %alloyed prespelity, and he was not going out al
his way to encourage a religion which would not conduce to
the interests of his country. Ilesiehs, he found that in on
Unman catholic state could bishops be appointed without
the cousent of the civil government. and was protestant
England to concede what no Rain= catholic country would
submit to ?
Mr. SCULLY iu-tided the appointment of a Roman ca-
atone hierarchy in Euelail. as no more aggressive than the
appesintment 4 bishops in Ireland. The language of the
ehwurnents might hi, "deli-foe to the feelings of protestante,
hut the +ante term. had been employed in the appointment
of vicars apostolic. The Roman catholic prelates of Ireland
had beam recognized under their territorial titles; the 21th
*action of the Emaucipatiou .act had been virtually re-
pealed Lthis bill would revive it. and render trusts be-
queathed to those prelates void. The objection as to a
divided allegiance had been disposed of in the debates on
that act : the allegiance of Roman catholic+ had been, and
always would be, true to their sovereign, and to a constitu.
tion which was won by them.
At least a down members rose to address the house, but
the Sereeta called on
Mr. lII' ME, who said in whichever aspect it was viewed,
he regarded this as the most unfortunate occurrence that
had taken place dining the lung period of his parliamentary
life. (Hear,hear.l The speech's which he had heard,
nminded him of those which were made in that house.
some 2.i years ago. with this difference, that at that period
L there was some ground of excuse for the course that had
I been pursued, whereas at prvsent, considering the changes
I which had taken place its public opinion and in the law,
there was's° justineetion for those who raised this gestation.
He looked upon the present measure me the first retroces-
sion front that long series of act. by which the Roman
catholic" of this conntry were relieved from grievances
nuder which they lead long suffered, and by which the
I people at Ireland were placed in a position in which it was
probable they would be' a source of strength to the empire,
, instead of a came of weakness, m they had been before.'
It was. in his mind, a most humiliating picture
to we the time of the English House of Commons
oczupied as it had beer,. be the neglect of moot important
questions, with a matter of this kind in the middle of the
loth century. (Rear. bear.) It was degrading to think
that they were at the present period of the world ripping

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TurstiAs. M.twn 23.
'Flo: house met at the usual hour.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
A number of petitions were presented.
CONDITION OF IRELAND.
Sr.. It. W. BARRON Rave notice of a i..tion for the ap-
pointment of a select committee to inquir. into the conch-
tion of Ireland, with the view of fliggt.ting a remedy for
caisting distress.
PATENT LAWS.
Mr ItIC ARM) cave notice that neat wi.k he would
move the appointment of a select committee to inquire into
the polio( of altering the potent laws.
FORTY-SHILLING RF.V.IIOLIIETts IN SCOT-
LAM).
Mr. J. B. emITII postpone,' his motion fir enabling
fortyAilling freeholders in Seutlmad to vote for shires until
thi• day fortnight.
EQUALISATION OF roows RATE.
Mr. G. BERKELEY gave notice that on this day fort-
night he would move is resolution to the t fleet that there
.holil.l be an equaliced pour's rate of Is. ad. in the pound.
.übjeet to local government.
COMMUNICATION WITH ACSTRAI.IA.
lord NA AS gave notice that when th.• noble lord the
member for Lymn . motion came on. he .houlit move that
that branch of the subject which related to communication
with Australia should be taken first.
RAJAH BROOKE.
Mr. IItME gave notice that he .hould. on an early day,
utek the Secretary of State for Foreign Attain. whether Sir
J. Brooke still held the appointment of her Majetty's Com-
mlnioner of Borneo.
NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Mr. W. 1.1,05 gave notice that on tbi• ivy fOrtnight he I
should move a resolution, to the effect that it i. expedient
for the better education of the poor that • sy.t.m of
national education should be established. to be supported to
local taxation.
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS.
Sir R. INGLIS put to the honourable Under Se-
cretary of State for the Colonic., the f. rowing 1111 k stioas.
of which he had given nothr —. Whether any r
been returned to the de.pmeh (with an inclosure) addressed
by his excellency Sir Charles Fitrroy. on the 311th July.
1140, to bar Majesty's yeiocipal finzetary of Beate fur the

efi if they were applicable UP OM' own
(Hear' keit.) It would be just as appropriate, in
lria *lid, to discuss the probability of a return to the period
trhenejudges of this country sentenced witches to be burned.
(Heafebear.) linty, the catholic, were as much improved
tit-respelt to forifier practices as the protestanta, and it was
• childish fear to suppose that the acts of former times
would becommittcd again. Yet it was for a discussion of this
kind that the important business ofperlisment was at
and he saw no end to future discussions of a similes led.
(Hear, hear.) - The real question they hod to deal with wee
-now theyesems-bost able .to watemlbe United Kingd
and is coming Sound -iciisausiint on that matter they
could never leave out of sight that one-third of the I:nitM
Kingdom differed from born in religious opinion. (Heal,
hear.) It would be arrogant in him to say that he wee
right and that they were wrowg ; but whether they wail
right or wrong, the policy and the law of the country plead
them on a fording o perfect equality with the other portion
of the United Kingdom, and it was from that point of elan
that it behoved them to look at this question. (Hear,
hear.) He denied that the Roman catholies were merely
tolerated, they enjoyed equal rights with the other portions
of her Majesty's subjects, and they were at full liberty to
practise and carry out the principles of their religion.
(Hear, hear.) As • protestant, ho maintained that it wee
inconsistent with the protestant principle of the right a
private judgment to act in any other spirit towards the
Roman catholics. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, it would be
tyranny to do so. (Hear, hear.) Was it not a melancholy
thought that the noble lord, whose whole character oral
influence in the country consisted in the uniform support
which he had given to religious freedom, should now,
by some unaccountable blunder, bo induced to recede
front that important principle. (Hear, hear.) •
great deal had been said about the letter whit
the noble lord had written. lie could say for kap I
self that 24 hours bad not elapsed when he declared hi
writing to a friend that it was impossible that that letter
could be the genuine production of the noble lord who hod I,
been during his whole previous career the friend of civil
and religious liberty. (Hear, hear.) When he recollected
the efforts of the noble lord to free the unitarians, to lase-
, rate the dissenters from the Test and Corporation Act, sad
his efforts in behalf of the Roman esthetics, he could ma
but believe that there had been some imposition. (Hew,
I hear.) When he heard the speech of her Majesty in whisk
she promised to maintain the free exercise of religion he
all, he thought it quite impossible that a bill of this Wail
I would be introduced. For, what was religious liberty bet
the free exercise of religious belief, and the use of all the I
'
forms necessary thereto (Hear, hear.) If that were so,
where was the aggression that was said to have taken place ?
I There was only one pert of the excelleut speech of the
right hon. gentleman, the member fur Ripon, in which
he did not concur, and that was when he char- 1
racterised the act of the Pope as arrogant, offensive, and
aggressive. If the right hon. baronet had said that the
matter had been introduced in an ungracious manner be'
(Mr. Hume) would go with the right hon. baronet. But it
now appeared that the letter or rescript was not intended
to be publinhed, and this, in his opinion, cut awaynine-
tenths of the ground from those who argued that this was
an aggression. (Hear.) All that had been done was to
change vicars apostolic into bishops, and the change made'
the Roman catholics more independent of Rome. (Hear.)
Ile had seen the petition which bad been sent to Rome in
1838, asking for the change. The petition was not attended
to at the time, but the application was renewed in 1818,
and it was known to every one that bishops were then
appointed. Where, then, was the novelty or the surprise
in what hail taken place ? They acknowledged the existence
of bishops in Ireland, and how could they refuse the same
in England ? lie could see no offence, nor aggression in
what had taken place. Why, there were no two members
who did not differ in the reasons they gave for supporting
the bill. (Hear, hear.) All this showed how ridiculous and
absurd it was to legislate upon this subject. (Hear, hear.)
It was said that it was an insult to assign dioceses to the
bishops co-extensive with those of the established
church. But there was the free kirk of Scotland—
now more numerous than the established kirk of Scotland—
which had its general assemblies, its 'synods, its presbyteries,
and its parishes of the same extent as the cetablished church
of Scotland, sod yet no complaint was ever made on the
subject. Why then complain that the limits of the itoman
catholic district., were the same as those of the established
church in England ? (Hear, hear.) Ile:regarded the bill as
one of pains and penalties—as the commencement of a sys-
tem which would not be limited to the Roman catholice.
The dissenters would comeen for their share, if power was
given to any one clue, to put down another. (Hear, hear.)
He regretted that dissenters, who could perform their reli-
gious service. without impediment, should now jein in the
cry which hail been raised against Roman catholic". (Hear,
hear.) They ought to consider that no portion of her Ma-
jesty's 'subjects had supported the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts with more readiness than Roman catho-
lies. What • sad return did they make, when, has ing ob-
tained their own liberty, they now sought to place trammels
on those who hail helped them to achieve it. (Hear, hear.)
Having heard that 49 petitions had been presented from the
Wesleyan*, he was anxious to learn from what class of
Wesleyan thee proceeded. The Wesleyan, had split, like
the church of England ; and he was very much mistaken if
the reform party would not soon outnumber the other. It
was important to ascertain whether or not the petitions
I emanated from those who would keep Weal.) an, in a state
of ignorance, and be themselves the l'ope. (Lauehter.)
The right of private judgment was denied by the Confer-
ence no less than by the Roman catholic clergy; and when
the whole of England was divided into districts by that
body, with what ahow of justice could they deny to Roman
catholic, liberty to act in • similar manner ? (Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him that on the ground of justice
this measure ought to be rejected. Ile should oppose the
bill, because if passed it would take from his fellow-sub-
jects the right of private judgment, and bemuse
having repealed disabilities by act of parliament, they
were now coked to take a retrograde step, which we, likely
to be attended with melancholy results.
Sir F. TIIESIGER said he had heard aggression de-
nounced in strong and emphatic language by all who con-
sidered that legislation was necessary ; he had heard the
insolent and haughty time of the papal brief spoken of by
some who were opposed to the bill ; but he had not houd
any satisfactory explanation of the mode in which the
measure would either redress the present aggres-
sion or race a barrier which would prevent aggression
in future. If the object were to prevent the assault and
aggression of an adversary they must not be content with
*mhos; off the blow which had been aimed at them, but
sound policy required that they should disable him from
further mischief. The question was what ought to be the
object of legislation ; and, in order to arrive at a just con-
clusion, they must consider what it WAS that had led to the
aggression. lie did not believe it would be found that
during the whole of the debate any Rumen catholic mem-
ber had stated that there was any religious necessity fur
the important change which had been made by means of
' the papal brief. (Hear, hear.) If there were any spiritual
wants of the Roman catholic, which justified it, they
would not have been lost sight of by so acute a rea-
souer as Cardinal Wiseman. What was it, then, that he
alleged to be the object of the papal brief ? Ile said
the object was to introduce the real and complete code of
the Pope, and that for that purpose the catholics must have
• hierarchy. Ile (Sir F. Thesiger) could not help coming
to the conclusion that there were other motive', than those
which had been assigned, and that there was here an illus-
tration of the fact that the papal power was ever on the
watch to take advantage of any favourable opportunity ;
awl they were galled upon to resist this interference
to the utmost of their power. (Hear, hear.) It had been
said that the bill ought to be confined to England, seeing
that Ireland bad fora series of years possessed Roman ca-
tholic bishops, having the titles of Iri,h sees, with the
sanction and connivance of the legislature. He be-
lieved there had been great misapprehension with
regard to the real state of the law in Ireland
in respect to the assumption of ecclesiastical tithe.
Ilia right hon. friend the member for Ripon stated in the
course of his remarkable speech, that in 1793 an Irish act
WY passed to banish all the archbishops and bishop, of Ire-
, land ; but," said he, "H, strong was the feeling in favour
of complete religious toleration, that in the very next year
that act was repealed." Being astonished at the assertion,
lie had applied to his right hon. friend to tell him on what
authority he had made it, and his right hon. friend told him
that the Duke of Wellington, in a debate, a passage from
which he showed him, had made the state-
ment in the presence of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord
Eldon, and Lord Tenterden, said therefore his
right hon. friend thought, that without further inquiry, he
was entitled to consider the statement as correct. Now, it
so happened that there was no such act in 1792, and there-
fore he need not ray there was no art of 1793 repealing it.
(Hear, hear.) There was an act of William 111. rim banish-
ing, not all popish ecclesiastics, to use the language of the
act, but all ecclesiastics of rank, specifying them, arch-
bishops, bishops, vicars-general, and dean, and all the
regular clergy ; and it was a very remarkable fact that that
act, having been continued by several intermediate attn.,
was made perpetual by the Bth of Queen Anne. In
the year 1782 an act was passed to enable Roman ca-
tholic ecclesiastics to register themselves on taking certain
oaths; but the Bth section contained the remarkable eecep-
tion, that no person should he entitled to the benefit of the
act who Resumed any ecclesiastical rank or title. (Hear,
hear.) That statute was confined to Ireland. The art of
11793, though undoubtedly passed for the relief of the
'Roman catholic people of Ireland, had nu operation what-
ever as regarded ecclesiastics who assumed any rank or
title ; and if hon. gentlemen would turn to the act of 1795,
by means of which the College of Maynooth was founded
and endowed, they would find that the Roman catholics
were named after all the laity, and named, too, not
as bishops but as electors of divinity. (Hear, hear.)
The house would obeerve, therefore, that down to the year
1793 the practice was contrary to the law. It had been said
that the I'ope hail created bishops, with titular stet, in
in
or.eignunio!
Elizabeth,
Ireland from the time when the reformed religion was
completelylie k.
b y whome she that
sous
ceded, appointed an Archbishop of Armagh, hut subse-
quently the Irish bishops, like the Enitlith, were bishops in
earldom, and so far was the distinction which had been
drawn in that respect between England and Ireland from
being founded in fact, that, down to 1793, the
acts in Ireland against the assumption of cede-
iiastical rank and titles were stronger than any passed
in England down to that period. (low, hear.) Well, so
matters remained down to the pesong of the Emancipation
Act in 1819. and because under that act a penalty was Un-
posed on those who took the titles of particular tees, it was
supposed that there was then • virtual repeal of all the acts
passed on the subject prior to that time. Every lawyer,
however, knew perfectly well that one affirmative act did
not repeal another affirmative act unless the two were in-
consistent with each other, and therefore he apprehended
that the law continued in precisely the same state as it
had been with regard to the assumption of ecclesiastical
titles. Thus it stood with respect to the assumption

of titles in the colonies sad is Imbed, and he appre
hended that nothing could jostify them in saying that there
was any difference in the case of the latter country and iu
that of England—(hear, hear)-4uffielent to prevent them
- and extending their pre. entice legiaatitto to
. -4 - would

. .
taking warning, ,____ _ _ _
.. . tau.
was were anything in the recent act of the Pope to render hear.) But the view t o my !tun. and boated tn
every; pert of the United Kingdom. Ile we—. next Mok--, lulhallywadisYsting. wished- _ .
...
learned a
legislation imperative? The Pope well knew that the view—formidable indeed—(hear,
hear)—and I am oblied
oef
nittz , four
plot
ni saw,: ellw tinged
of
I"st'lrelanaia"ud. (141-7eaV,thhesthsr.) stable lord
tllrt ihuthertingmiiimaght boef rouhimse, witiethch is eisarhere idisnimmrnvited teo
dangery=_autorthkie ncigobdle.leid.
off,
etre, exhte,:rd)ed hNi%sm. letgailat.diouhtios wprheseichntwee.se:ectlitehelacti,ni_uincLito,is)tm.,Zoaft nacho
lw.lict,llconoidneer
'ltettnese - done ? In the wiry hest of the popular the direction to which it tends. eCheers.) What wee
fermett he created a new Irish biehop, the bishop that ominous passage in the speech of my hon. and
of Ross ; thus throwing down the gauntlet of de- i learned friend, in which ho described the course
fiance, and compelling the noble lord either to abandon of courts in this country during and since the
his duty, or to involve himself in all the difficulties which year 1829? What surrenderedhe told the house of benefits abused
I had recently. occurred by determining boldly, and m he —what of defences —what of inroads of the
' (Sir F. Theatre) thought justly, to (-steed the bill to Ire- enemy. And are those defences nut to be repaired, are
lead. (Protectionist cheer's.) lie would now call the at- the inroads not to be repelled? (Hear, hear., It is plain,
tention of the house to the state of the law as related to in my hon. and learned friend's judgment, not only that
bane. Down to 1829, and indeed after that period, there such things are to be done but the particular way in which
were the act of prfrmunire, and the statutes of Elizabeth. they should be done he, too, clearly indicated, viz., by a
When the Emancipation Act was teemed those statutes ex- restriction of the principle of religious freedom in its ap-
Isted in all their force, and were sufficient for the motet- plication to the Roman catholic subjects of these realms.
Sion of the kingdom. There was no necessity for royal 1 (Loud cheers front the Irish members.) For my hon. and
epos or execuaturs, of which they had heard so much, but learned friend said, and bc was ready to stake the question
which in his opinion were not precisely suited to this king- on the Lillie.— (hear) will you introduce in com-
dom. But alter 1829 we began a system, of what he must mittee on the bill a clause prohibiting the meeting
call inconsiderate indulgence, by which gradually were re- of Roman catholies in synod? (Hear, hear.) Now,
moved from the statute book almost every security that had about that I apprehend there can be no mistake.
rev-Moody existed against papal encroachment. (Hear, I presume nu member of the home (though I believe
bear.) 1 hey had broken down the battlements o their there are many who would be prepared to vote for such •
fortress—nay, they had almost dismantled the citadel—and clause)—l presume there is no member of the house who
thus had given an opportunity to any one who was so in- would not stand up in his place and say, " I will vote for a
dined to march in and take possession. (Hear, hear.) The clause prohibiting Roman catholies from meeting in synod,
noble lord himself had evidently never apprehended the but I ant a friend to the full religious freedom of the
recent encroachment. But this brief made its ap- Roman catholies." (Hear.) My own case on the present
pee:mice, and created a very strong popular ferment occasion is this --I admit with the noble lord (J. Ituesell)
throughout the country. The noble lord eaw the risiug that the debate is exhatietea, and ail the best arguments that
storm, watched its progress, laud, at last, after some little can be brought forward on either side have been stated
deliberation, turning his face in the direction of the popular but my case is that of being the only member preeent, re-
gale he issued his celebrated letter. In that letter the I presenting an English university and a large body of per-
noble lord promised that the law should be carefully ems suns deeply interested in the question, who has not ad-
mitted with a view to its being brought into operation, and dressed the house, while he has the misfortune to
the people exulted in finding such a champion of their stand in opposition to the sentiments and judgment
rights. (Hear, hear.) It was admitted that the law was of Isis colleagues in regard to this bill. (Hear,
sufficient for the punishment of this aggression, owed why, hear.) I must confess that many matters have been
then, had not the law been carried into operation ? introduced in the debate which might have been well
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord hail said it was not avoided. Allusion has been made to the intestine divisions
expedient, because the statutes had become obsolete, and it and threatened dangers of the church of England—that
would look harsh if a statute long dead were dragged from is a question in which I think we shall make no progress,
the statute book to meet this particular case. But then but rather complicate by incidental allusion. I will only
the acts of Elizabeth had been under consideration in 1841 say, that though Ido not pretend to make light of the
and 1816, and although their penalties were removed, dangers to which the church is exposed, I differ on one
their prohibitions were retained. He should have thought point from my hon. and learned friend the member fur
, that they would then have received a modern dress, and Midhurst, who expressed an apprehension, iu which Ido
' become ailicable to modern purposes. But the noble lord .um share, fur the freedom of the Queen. (Hear, hem.) I
now left the law in the same unsatisfactory state, and had so have no such apprehension. (Cheers.) I have sufficient
framed his bill as to be inapplicable to any future faith in the principle of free representative institutions, and
' form of aggression. What was the nature of the tag- in the principle of free discussion, to believe that the coa-
-1 gression, and what the measure which the noble setution of England is strong enough to meet and repel
lord proposed for our protection ? The act of the any aggro-140n perprated or premeditated by any power
Pope was evidently temporal, and framed with temporal or spiritual. (Cheers.) But with regard to the
a -view to the establishment of his sovereign power over the church of England, it is idle to dispute that her eituation at
kingdom of England. (" Oh, oh," from the Irish members.) the present moment is one of serious difficulty. (Cheerio.)
The l'ope ignored the fact that in 1708 the kingdom of And, sir, if I refer to that circumstance now, it is for the
England ectuad to be, and because Great Britain ; but the purpose of protesting against tell attempts to meet the spi-
fact woo, that Rome now abandoned a claim once made, ritual dangers of the church by temporal legislation.
and anciently the " kingdom of England " was claimed as (Cheers and counter-dicers.) Met I believe those dengers
part of the patrimony of St. Peter. (Hear, hear.) The may be, if you confront them with calmnese, with tens-
hon. and learned member for Plymouth had said that tole- mance, and with wisdom; but they will not he cured by a
ration would not be complete if full faeilitieswere not given set of remedies which in times and in circumstances Mr
fur the complete development of the Roman catholic more favourable to their application utterly failed. (Cheers.)
church. But that full development was nothing short of 'fuming the question immediately before the house,
universal dominion. (Hear, hear.) And lest it Mr. Gladsome said I want to know whether we
might be concluded that proteetants were excepted from are justified in proectibing an act connected with
the rule he would read to the house a very short passage the religious arrangements of a large body of our
from one of the divinity class books at Maynooth. In that fellow-subjects--an act done by a pope and a car-
book, which lie believed was in use at the present day, the dinal, fs• whose words and language, so offensive to me
principle was laid down that, " Ecelcsia, seam juris- they are not directly respou.ible. (near, hear.) If the
dictionem in omnes apostaticos hereticos, et erhisonaticos, language be offensive, we must look to the substance of the
rennet, ltilallgUlthl ad alias corpus non jam pertineant," and act, by which we must stand or fall. In point of principle
further on, lest there might be any doubt, it added, and prudence, I can conceive other steps which would have
e Societas protestantorum excusare non limiest." Therefore been wise, but it is not for no- to con-tier whether there has
it was clear that the universal rule claimed over all sehis- been a breach of the law of nations. If the law of nations
ntatics included the protestants among the rest. This then be broken, then nothing could be more disparaging than for
was their situation, that they could not admit the principle the government to make, as for the house to listen to, a
of toleration in the slightest degree without admitting the proposel to melte that breach of the law of nations
whole claim of the Roman entholies as expounded by only by a letter to a bishop and an act of par-
themeelves. But it was said that the Pope had liarnent. (A slight interruption here occerrred, which
rather receded in his pretensions in substituting for vicars rendered the right hon. gentleman inaudible for a
apostolic a regular hierarchy. All he could say was that short time.) I assure the lion. member that I did nut mean
it the Pope had receded it was contrary to his mood prac- to assert that the noble lord had done himself any dis-
tice, hut it was probably after the (whim' of our neighbours, honour by writing that letter. Ido not think the noble
"realer pour mieux tauter." (Hear, hear.) Again, he pro- lord would have so demeaned and disgraced himself—for a
posed to introduce the canon law, not the canon law to disgrace to hint it would have been—if he had known when
whites they had been accustomed, hut a new law, the vital he wrote it that a breach of the law of nations had been
principle of a kWh was to leave the ultimate appeal in every committed, as that hie interference should not have been by
case to the Pope himself. But even granting that in this the regular means against the person who had done the
case the Pope gave up some of his power, he was merely wrong, hint by a letter to a bishop. No ground has been laid
transferring it to the church of which he was the head, fist the government to answer. If the independence of the
and it was as dangerous in the one case as in the other. nation had liven violated, you should have proceeded by
Such being their position, he would proceed to examine the diplomatic agency. But what is the answer made by the
measure with which the noble lord proposes to meet the crisis. government to that question ? Only this .—That a clause
The noble lord had himself given a character to his own was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations Bill, which
bill. In 1816 the noble lord mid, "as to preventing permits prevented the Pope from sending his agents over to plead
from assuming particular titles, nothing can be more absurd MS cause. That was no answer at all. The noble lord
and puerile than to keep up such a distinction." Ile had said that it is not a case for war, but we are told that
turned to the noble lord's bill, and asked what was it pro- we have a clause in the act regulating our diplomatic
posed to do by it ? To prevent the assumption of parti- relations, which prevents the rope from being represented
cuter ecclesiastical titles. (Cheers) Then, adopting the at this court by an ecclesiastic. But was that a remelt for
noble lord's own expression, the desires of the country were not sending an envoy to the Pope, if he had invaded our
met with a bill that was absurd and puerile. (" Hear," religion and done wroneeto the crown ? Would any one
and a laugh.) lle believed the bill would be futile tell me that the Pope would have been bold enough to
, even to prevent the acts condemned. Mr. O'Connell used have turned back the envoy who brought to him our cre-
te to say that there was no act of parliament through which dentials ? It appears that that ease is without a precedent,
be could not drive • coach and six ; and he was satisfied but if you should refuse to receive an ecclesiastic it would be
that this was a bill over which (he would not say through, the same thing to Rome as to refuse to receive any diplomatic
for it was too small for that), but over which Carolina" Wise- representative at all, ',cause all her diplomatic reprmenta-
man would have no difficulty whoetever in driving his state tives are and must be ecclesiastics. fhe great powers of
carriage without receiving the slightest shock himself. Eurmsc who are not in communication with the l'ope pursue
(" Hem," and a laugh.) The bill proposed to prevent the exactly the course I have pointed at. Beth Itimeia and
assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Now suppose Dr. Cul- Prussia—neither of which countries were in diplomatic
len addressing Dr. Wiseman and calling him Cardinal communication with Rome—adopted precisely that mode of
Archbishop tit Westminster, he signing himself Paul Cul- negotiation. Why, therefore, should not we adopt the
len, there wets nothing to prevent this. (Hear.) Or sup- atone course, and not afford to the goventment an excuse
pose the cardinal addressing Dr. Cullen as Archbishop of fur not vindicating and repelling this insult to
Armagh, but signing himself Nicholas Wiseman, this would the crown by diplomatic relations; representing
be no infringement of the law. (Cheers.) The bill was so the wrung to hint who had dune it, and de-
weak and flints,' that it required but the feeblest casuistry mantling redress. We have now got a bill before us,
to break through it. True, if the person assumed the title and the question is what to do with it ? And I grant that,
himself, there was the 1.001. penalty ; but any other person however right or wrong the government may be, we must
might address him by it without incurring asp penalty. make up our minds on the question they have proposed,
The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General had both whether we should vote or nut for the second reading of
stated that the bill would prevent synodical action. He this bill: The- noble lord, at the lie-ginning of his speech,
presumed from that statement that it was their intention made the remark, that the bill was eagerly attacked
it should do so. But he bad some doubt whether, as it on the one side and as eagerly defended on the
stood, this first clause—and it was to be the only clause— other. But I have heard nn man, of the twenty-
would prevent synodical action. As there was doubt on the six who, I think, have spoken in this debate,
subject, the best way to bring the matter to the test was to who was very eager in the defence of this bill.
introduce a clause specifically to prevent synodical action. (hear, hear.) My hon. and learned friend who has just
(Cheers.) They could not but supporte that it was after sat down was eager in denouncing the act of the Pope, but
careful and guarded deliberation that the clauses were I did not hear one word from him in advocacy of the bill ;
framed which were to bear so extensive au operation ; but our, indeed, have I heard one man speak in defence of the
the right hon. baronet (Sir (y. Grey) had toed them that bill, or attempt to show that it is adequate to the
not may did the bill not express in terms what was meant, purpose for which it has been introduced. (Cheers.)
but that it expromed what was never meant—(hear, 1 think that my honourable and learned friend called the
hear)—for be said that if the second and third clauses bill " absurd and puerile"—(hear, hear)—and indeed my
were allowed to continue, they would operate, the learned friend went further, and mid that the noble lord
one to prevent letters of ordination, and other doeu.. himself had so described it. (Laughter and cheering.)
mente having legal effect, the consequence of which might !loth of the law officers of the crown—the Attorney-
lie serious, and the other to prevent bequests and en- General and the Suiciter-General—have alluded to the
dowments being made to Roman cathoolics. The hon. question as to whether this bill—this retrenched bill, I
member for Dundalk had quoted the opinions of eminent mean—would prevent synodical action. I understood the
lawyers to show that alter thine two clauses were swept Attorney-General most distinctly to my that the bill with
away still the bill would have that effect. No opinion had its one clause—and I understood the Solicitor-General as
been offered in opposition to that of the eminent gentleman distinctly to say that the bill with its one clause would pre-
quoted, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) was dispeaml to think it vent synodical action. (" Hear, hear," and " No, no.")
Was right ; for as the first clause prohibited the title, any Sir, I have not doubted what was the intentiox of the
act done by the Roman catholic bishop under the prohibited hun. and learned gentleman, and I will not believe any
title would be void. So far the second section appeared to other et idence when my own ears put me in possession of.
him to lie involved in the first. With regard to the led clause, what he says. (Hear, hear.) But I yam from this to
he thought under the Charitable Bequests Act there might be another point.
this distinction: if the bequest was mole to trustees on ouch The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I said that the Roman
terms that there would be a sufficient designation of the per- catholics themselves put it on that ground, that they said
son independent of the, prohibited title, it wouldbvniolltelett.L-gauvp.oinidsst, Winairtedrinttorial titles were essential to synodical action. (Hear.)
but the object and purpose of it might be carried out. But Mr. GLADSTONE—lolretkm.,ember very well that the hon.
thean
dt time referred
,ro .itit
no theis
one lit toe.-
tt
hl the
tnhoilirlde
Telo.rdtiowgasofinhi.thoisw.dilbemillm,
oar—ahlleowmust4 leosfmthede Itomgentainencmathn
eitoz,,,s wthilusc h
difficulty,h e
~aisiatehatinocldh,t.ehgde,:.ll:T.:thtuure,
nerciiitwroo.asonf which
stringency..- hainhtaTiora will
n t
en
.do t
ii nnsideut
i,
ngl
so, h eie,t, however,
hhe 01
tuck
o advantage1state,si
ht ihnakt
mbunttsonineineguypmtov
nwi nit
lith,,e.hcittihmtahle
billof hwiistharigt,umzet
oduceftitli,nit oint haelificrs.t es l
ianue,o;
chilaussehowwouthlde
hainchestiteepreii
any authority ; and that exception would be so large, that prevent synodical action, and meet the object which it is
it would swallow up the whole bill, and the clause would I said, on some hands, the promoters of the bill have in view.
eingrs7dth,nd and third clauses i The law officers of the crows
only refer to the assumption of titles by Roman catholic I Well, sir, may I ask what is to be the effect of the excision
bishops in society. ("Hear," and a laugh.) He might be
second expunged,
atht
the first
douse
—this
thirdclau clauseswai
nhaavocp,hrolone
ieihnoZolwto-outlea forhue
tahels
this being his opinion as to the bill, what he intended to do, have stated—the Attorney-General has stated most dis-
ria ndtilchweec
wo uhled.wheel I
answeredun ol understand nee I ofeti .nthpeut
reading. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh) But why should with the effects which would have beenproduced had the
he do so? First, because he thought legislation was slum second and third classes been allowed to remain (Hear'
lately necessary ; secondly, because the bill, bad as it was, hem) I hope Ido not make ymistake 'as to
would be a first step • and he would rather take the mini- the meaning of the Attorney-General."(l -
num offered than nothing. But he voted for it on another hon. member, in addressing te hote produced anal An
aud mere important ground. That was that it was the ported by hill own authorityg
an opinion with ueehichshe sul
con-
only opportunity afforded to those, who thought the bill soles himself as to the advantages which wouldresult from
was nut what it ought to be to endeavour to introduce into this measure, as stated by the
Attorney-General.
lie i
committee such amendments as would meet the lin effect, if not'
in words, that the first clause would aye,
occasion. (Loud cheerio.) If the noble lord was sincere in his .dude the second and third, whilst the wou notin- ,
second tend third '
view of the aggreseion, he ought to have come forward with clause would stand involved in the • I
first. Laughter.) That
a bill in which in explicit terms he should have denounced lis well •
pretty we certainly by way of contradiction. But, as it
the aggression as being opposed to the supremacy of the I were I suppose to mend matter,
down
the atx, my honourable and
Queen, and have introduced clauses prohibiting all per- I Learned friend who has jot' sat (Sir F. Thesiger)
sons from acting under this brief or any other similar &adefinition . comes in with a third
meet under a penalty. (Hear, hear.) This was what the ;us that neither th • arc
nor
the other of the statements to
noble lord should have done if he desired that his acts which I have alludedi
should agree with his words, and with anything Rhone of that the • ,nd
cla wills right. (Laughter.) He tells ue
that the public would not ix, satisfied. If they pro- but that the thirdu will (Continuednotineicelin the first clause., I
ceeded in • vacillating hesitating course he was satisfied " hear, hear.") 'Phis
is an accurate i laughter, and
partial statement
they would entirely fail. If they touched this nettle dan- of the condition in which the ho an
impartial
Louse stands with regard to its
ger timidly it would sting, but ifthey grasped it boldly it legal illumivation on the • vital vote which it is about to give.
would hurt them not. He rewarded this aggression as but (Laughter and "hear.") But air, again, the public suppose
the first of a series of encroachments, against which they that this is a bill •
were bound to make their stead. He was so sensible of fain the rights of the ' Queen • crown, and the independence
the advantages of the light and liberty of the Reformation lof the nation. (Laughter, and " Hear, hear.") It is to
won for us by the labour, the danger+, and the blood of our 1 maintain the right of the Queen's crown. Who has in-
ancestors, that,' he fur one would endeavour to transmit
ended these rights . A foreign power. What has this
those advantages unimpaired down to those who would Co reign
rugn power done ? It has introduced a measure, it is
succeed us. (Cheers.) , said, to impose penalties on her Majesty's subject+. Well,
Sir J. GRAHAM begged to explain that the extract but supposing this . is the case, does this hill contain any-
which he had read from Hansard as to what the Duke of
thing to meet that
' th•
> Does this bill contain any two coherent
Wellington said in the debate in the House of Lords on the ideas, or is
Bth of April, 1829, in reference to the Act of 1792, and fromit i I
wouldere arty
eon havee principle capable of being deduced
refere I
a comparative respect for the bill i
which was quoted from Reward, was erroneous in 110 far if it
object of t were
consistent,
. even in regard to a false principle. Bet
as it referred to the act of 1792. Ile had since referred to ' I n • tam that there
the " Mirror of Parliament," and found that the act re- bill now
furred to by the noble duke was the act of 1782 instead of ole submitteds
e measure is to repress to
this
house*
Theavowedress foreign authority,
s
1792. (Leuglito r.)
Mr. GLADSTONE then rose. He said—l have listened titles.
and in doing this you say you will prohibit foreign
But, though you attempt to prohibit foreign titles ;
as the house must have done, to the speech just delivered I
ask
you why you prohibit domestic titles ,
hy my hon. and learned friend, with gratitude for the value • There domestic ' • Mess'
hear.)
arc titles which might exist, but winch are '

able information it conveyed as to his views of the law of prohibited. This is not so remote a case ; for in the last
the ease, and with that admiration which I, in common session of parliament, or in the session before last, there
with every hon. member present, must feel not only for was a petition presented in the House of Peers by Lord
his great talents mid the varied ingenuity with which Brougham, in which certain gentlemen who denominated
he states his opinions, hut for his character as a themselves English Episcopalians, prayed that the Ileum
mud accomplished la, (Hoar, would grant theme piscopal gove- Intent. Now no episcopal
'be ' 711 eta", if the --sent

government could -_ given to such parties, if the pre,.
bill passed • for by this bill the exercise of such functions
would be absolutely prohibited on the part of such indi-
viduals or bodies of Christians. In the letter of the nnhle
lord (Lord J. Russell), the episcopal church in Scotland
was nut referred to—the case of Scotland was omitted. Yon'
have now introduced an exception, but I cannot accept that
exception withgratitude.Althouglifnmibeingellen reeident in
Scotland I entertain great friendship fur the Scotch bishops
—although I respect them, and feel attached to them ; yet
I have no desire that an exceptional system of civil or reli-
gious privilege or toleration should be created. I want to
know why episcopal titles are to be prohibited, while terri-
torial titles arc to be tolerated ? We hear a great deal about
territorial titles, but does this bill prohibit territorial titles?
If all such titles were prohibited, I could understand what
you mean. Some boo. gentlemen say that the bill defends
the territorial rights of the crown, but how can it defend
the territorial rights of the crown, if, while it prohibits the
siesumption of episcopal titles, it does not prevent the
tricts, as well as episcopal bodies. The Wesleyan,* divide
litigoionusof ctuenrrimit'umniaitlytiwtilhl di vlidleertehearceo'u4ihiterrycilnustnesdios-f
of Edinburgh and Glasgow, and other places, and in Eng-
ta"isthheeuconrlpu. country into circuits. In Scotland you have the Bishops
Eng-
land you have the presbyteries of London, and Birmingham.
I want to know whether the titles of the bishops in Scot-
land are territorial ; and I ask, also, if the presbyteries are
not also territorial in England ? The sole difference is, that
the power of the bishop is diffused in the hands of the
presbytery, for the title is strictly territorial. (Hear,
hear.) If you tell me that the title of bishop
is to be treated as territorial because it is com-
bined with temporal incidence, then I say there exists the
same reason fur treating presbyteries as territorial, for in
Scotland they are connected with many temporal interests,
and form courts having jurisdiction over the people in vari-
ous matters. (Hear, hear.) This bill does not, I repeat,
defend the territorial rights of the Queen, and while invited
to discuss an anti-Runtish bill you are also invited to discuss
an anti-episcopal bill. (Rear, hear.) I take the bill as its
promoters interpret it. It is to prevent Romish aggression.
Now, sir, looking at this measure strictly in the light in
which I presume government desire it to be met—
al a measure to prevent Romish ago:mission, the
noble lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord
Palmerston) treated this bill as "amply an exten-
sion of the section of the act of 1820. Mk is not a
simple extenxiem of the section of the net of 1829. The act
of 182 the part of it which was referred to was this—it
went on to prevcat the usurpation of certain existing titles,
known to the law, and designated certain individuals hold-
ing important rights. It declared that the man—the
Roman catholic bishop whooltecanie a claimant, or pretended
to important rights, political privileges, and ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, could not be tolerated, because it was a matter
of policy and order to defend these title-, from being usurped
by others. But when you don't pretend that any confusion
is to arise by the assumption of the titles proposed to be.
taken under the papal brief, you bring the question simply
assumedto issue as t o w
as
episcopal
you
ar
titles,will Blown. theseinter
interfering
togs
..i o
ihtho
the rights of any one. It is fur you to prove, which you
have laboured to do in vain, that the reecript of the Pope
has a temporal character to justify your legislation. Don.
as in giving a general expression to their sentiments in
sgeponktignsoenn%ie.he'h' have
'dee feciaago'flh ein bill, h insr in opposition siltrovnetoirti,
regard to legislation on the subject. They have used argu-
ments which divide themselves into two classes—some of
them go too far, and others fall miserably short of the
mark. (Hear, hear.) When we hear hon. gentlemen
point to Roman catholic countries, and speak of the de-
gradation whieh they say attends the prevalence of the
Roman catholic religion', that is an arguinent which goes
a great deal too tar, because nothing can be more
incongruous than to hear it wild this country,
and that country, and the other emintry, are
reduced to the lowest state of degradation because they aro
under Roman catholic sway, and then to denounce the im-
putation that you are going to do an •thing to prevent the
spreadof the Roman catholic faith. Hear, hear.) I have
protested against meeting the eat 'olio. religion thus ;
first of all, because the measure is false in principle, and if
not, it is ridiculous in extent. You must meet a spi-
ritual system by a spiritual system. You have of her arguments
1 admit, but they fall equally far short. You moist show that,
not only are these titles founded ou a foreign authority, hut
that they are temporal oithaos. Then you would be justified,
but until you reach that point you have no justification
whatever. Many gentlemen say they are not teitistied, it is
necessary for Roman catholic purposes this introduction
of a regular Roman catholic hierarchy. Well, I must con-
fess I do nut know why they should or why 1 should bo
satisfied on that subject. It is no part of the duty of a Ro-
man catholic to satisfy me that his ecclesiastical arrange-
ments are reesonable and necessary'. If 1 understend
anything of the doctrine of relig liberty, it im-
plies that in the matter of religious action parliament is not
to intrude. The noble lord at the head of the
government was the boldest in this matter, for the noble
lord distinctly stated this, unless I mistook him,—l under-
stood him distinely to say that the appointment -I have put
down the words—that the :ippointnient of bishops was 110 t a
spiritual but a temporal affair. The noble lord adheres to
that, I did not mistake him.
Lord J. RUSSELL: 1 quoted the authority of Dr. Twins
to that purpose.
Mr. GLADSTONE: That is the opinion of an excellent
man, but I should like to knew if the noble lord adopts his
authority? What I say is this, that the episcopal
office has been for a long series of years spiritual, and you
arc nut justified in treating it as a civil matter when
its civil incidences have been detached from it. What I
have further to say is this, if the appointment of bishops
per se is not u temporal but a spiritual act, why do you in-
terfere ? If, on the other huud, it is nut a spiritual but a
temporal act, why do you except the Scotch bishops?
I hope the government will get out of that dilemma.
With regard to the interference of the synod
of Thurles in education, it is not necessary fur
me to go at this moment into the question
whether that interference was right ur wrong. What
Isay is this, thud if persons who have spiritual func-
tions interfere in temporal affairs, beyond the limits of their
rights as citizens, because within these limits they had a
right; but if they went beyond them, then you should
repress them by law, but do not suspend them from their
spiritual functions. But the Solicitor-Generul speaks of
suspension from benefices. Why, the Roman catholic' aro
not the only religious body who suspend from benefices.
I apprehend that suspension is common in the free church
of Scotland, and among dissenters in England. Why is
that more temporal in those churches than in the Roman
catholic church ? No doubt 1 grant that suspension from
benefices may incidentally affect temporal interests, but
there is 110 religious body in the world whose ecclesiastical
concerns do uut incidentally and owaeleionally affect
temporal interests. It is not enough for you to
show that the Roman catholic body in that respect partake%
of the qualities of every other ecclesiastical body. What
you must show is this, that the Roman catholic body does
something with regard to temporal affairs peculiar to
itself. And I venture here to assert and to challenge con-
tradiction, that you have neither given proof, our have you
ever offered proof, in regard to any of the de-
tails of ecclesiastical machinery, that there is an
interference in temporal uffairs required in the recent
arrangements of the Roman catholic church of any other
kind then that which is necessarily inciolentul, and net more
than is incidental, to the practices of all religious bodies
w hate ver.llW hat we want to timid are proofs of a temporal cha-
racter in this rescript of the Pope ; and without such visors
made good of a temporal character, distinct from that which
incidentally attaches to any religion whatever, you have not
a shadow of a ground, on the principle you yourselves lay
' duwn for the passing of this bill. V. but then there
must be canon law. If it were canon law in the other sense,
the annoeneement could hardly havoo created greater alarm,
considering that we arc not explaining the bill, that the
boldest lawyers have employed themselves to tell us what
will be the sense, and what will he the effect, of that single
clause that we are invited to pass into a law—l must confess
that ail with great reluctance thut I enter into an examination
of the precise position of the canon law, as it might stand
either after or before this rescript. But there in abundant
matter that lies on the surface, and more, us appears to me,
than is suf§cient foor our consideration. But 1 will take
this canon law as it was in the time of Boni-
face the Eighth and Ronoriue the Ninth. Does
this bill shut it out ? Is there any declaration in
this bill that the Roman catholic shall nut be governed by
it? No such thing. You had a fond and distant hoopo
that by your legislative labours you will indirectly, by
shutting out synods, shut out the co. on law. But the Soli-
citor General has within a quarter of an hour distinctly
disclaimed that the bill would have such an effect.
But I will not stop short of the principle laid down
by my right hon. friend the member for Ripon that if this
canon law be ever so oppressive against the laity, however
severe it may be in its provisions on the laity, however it
may exalt the power of the clergy I lay down this princi-
ple, that that is their affair, and nut ours, and that
there will be no religious freedom in this coun-
try, if parliament is to be invoked to interfere
for the purpose of redressing the supposed or the red
grievances of this or that class of any religious deuornina•
tion. I cannot conceive anything more monstrous. and un-
reasonable than that gentlemen should claim for themselves
what they call religious liberty—that is, claim a religious
system fur themselves front Mormonism upwards, and then
having formed such a system for themselves, and
having chosen it of their own good will and pleasure, when
they find themselves robbed and ill-treated they should
come to parliament and request parliament to interfere.
That protection which you offer them, not like other pro-
tected interests they repudiate, and they liett of you frothing
more than that you would have the kindness to let them
slime. (Hear, hear.) Under all ordinary circum-
stances the bishop cannot dismiss a diocesan bishop
without bringing ham to trial, and in the same way when,
under your diocesan bishop you organise your diocesan
clergy, then them: dioreean clergy have important rights
as against bishops. What is the present state oh the Co. ?
Why, that the Pope has absolute mastery of the religious in-
terests of the Roman catholic. in Englund without stint or
limit whatever. There is no right that they possess as
bishops. Every priest holds his benefice subject to the ab-
solute will of the Pope of Rome. And I say if you want to
deseribe the legal system under which the Roman catholic
lives at the present moment, you cannot describe it better
than in these words of Mediae° the Eighth, and llonorius
the Ninth, and which frightened the hon. member fur Ox-
ford from his propriety : " I declare it is necessary to salvation
to believe that even- neon is bound to be subject to the Pope."
I confess, it wounds me as a member of the English church
to sec that hierarchical organisation spreading over the

and. (Rear, hear.) It appears to me that it is perfectly .
rieht and legitimate, it
I may pn,unie to expires an
opinion on gc. fee the eleory of the church of
ngln. in an eceleeie.tical setae, to make their pro-
test astainst that eorentaie,sioi a I do not speak of the
laneta,ge used in snakiest tlia: protest, but or the fact of the
pret.-4. But. whole I say this. 1 would point out the coil
that it is • very elafereat matter when that clergy conies to
invoke the temporal arts. There is one important pert
of the recent speech of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell)
in
which I emphatically agree. lie spoke of the great change
which has n plea, in the eeclesiastical apLit of the RO-
MA* c %Oldie church. We all know that in that body, as
in I.there, there have been great diviiiime of parties • some
chose% of peewits taking eatrente views and centralising
eeclesiastkal power in the court of Rome ; others, cm the
other head, holding principles in form far more empire-
hensive, sliming much more to national position and to the
rights of national and provincial governing powers. Of
these two parties, I understand the noble lord to state—
and, if he dial %tete it, I. for one, agree with him,
and I, with him, contemplate the fact with the deepest
regret—that the extreme party has leaned great ground
within the Roman catholic communion of late years ; and
that the moderate party, which wa may S 3), was 100 years
age the prevailing party. in that cosuinuaion, now wri-
deatly the party which is not prevailing, but only secondary.
I agar with the noble ,ord in that statement of fact, and
I concur with him in the sentiments of deep regret
with which he refers to it. Now, an impression prevails
in this country—an impreesion which the noble lord, by his
relent epseelne, has done much to foster—that this mea-
sure which we are now considering is a measure intended,
not only to impeole the omen... hone of the Reiman catholic'
religion are a whole, but specially as a measure framed
to strike at the advance of what are called
ultremontane principles. Well, if it were so, I should
otrll say, "That is uo affair of ours." I may have,
anal I have, my opiuions on it—et:aliments of gladness or of
eret ; hut I Mould still say that no case had been made
out fair the interference of this house. lit should succeed in
proving that ever since the Reformation for 300 years, the
DIMS of the Roman catholic laity of England have been en-
reed in an eurneet struggle for that measure, against which
yo.o a...• now legislating, 1 shall be entitled to ask you if
anything could he more groan than for you now to interfere
with their acts, and to say, although you knew that they
coo struggled for this measure in order to defend their
rights, and to add to their owearitieis against Rome, yet,
nee erthebes, under pretence of putting doe. a ultra-
moontaniam, you will now step in and prevent the
acesomplishuwut of their hope.? (Cheers.) I must add to
what I have stated, that the y have struggled to
obtain this measure throughout with the sanction
if the British government. (Boor, hear.) Yes; the Bri-
tish geverument has ever until this moment opposed the
system of'sitvn apostolic, and encouraged the efforts of a
certain party of the Roman eitleolies to obtain diocesan
bishops. (Rear, hear.) I take my facts from authorities
of unquestionable eminence—from Dodd, who has been
referred to in the debate, and from Butler, who is well
known, and whose fate was to spend his life
in religious coutroversy, but who never lost that
spirit of the peacemaker, for which a blessing,
hen anal hen alt, r, is the reward. I will also
quote from a well-known Roman catholic writer, !terrine-
too. Butler refer. to what took place in 158-1, when the
old Itilit'l,l4l ePiO:irry laud dill out, and when Watson,
the last Bishop 01 Lincoln, hail expired. In 1581,
the very year of his death, Dr. Butler says,
the value of the hieraroby being felt, a plan
to divide England into two districts, with certain
arrangements of ordinance, and ordinaries, was formed.
lot regular.. idaveteel to the measure, as encroaching upon
and jute rferiug with their special exemptions and privileges.
In I.IMO tile matter tele:me-eel further. There were plans
for Medusas in ordinary, bishops in partihmx, or vicar, apos-
tolic, and arelidealeina But Ow government took a distinct
III", of tlwomeetion. What government ? Not a government
of modern whir-, who hail spent their lives in advancing the
auwed ndigiuu. liberty; but the government of Omen Eliza-
,. belle 'I he government of tauten Elizahe th desired that any
jurielieti to he exereired over the Itomin cathoolice
should be exercised through the medium of diocesan
bishoopa. In fart, Butler says V/ generally was it understood
that the appointment of elimasan bishop* would be accept-
able to Elizabeth and to her ministers that the whole
eathoolic bushy were unaiiimme in favour of such a
measure. in 1495, having failed in obtaining these
Inehmo. the weeder clergy sent a deputation to Rome,
anal petit' I the Heinen see for the appointment of
Indio/s in ordinary, with salaries. In 1602 they
ugaiu sent two, deputation.. to Rome, and afterwards
the secular clergy again sent three deputation for
the some purpew. Anal in 1607, says lierrintrton,
there were two English Roman esthetic clergymen
at Rome petitioning fur the appointment of Roman catholic
hiehope iu England. In 1621, the same author says, King
Ja.lllt. was iufurumd haw anxious the catholic* were to
poseur, bishops, and it was then intimated that this would
lw s measure not distill using to the king, ionovided that they
wo re chosen men, of moderate mid nut personally
dieagrevalile to hems-WI ill 1631 the Roman catholic clerky
anal laity preemie,' a memorial to the Pow, praying for the
appointment of dimes:en hithope. In 163.1, Paremazzi was
envoy in England to Charles I. from the Pope; and in
1641, the regular clergy were lovely emplooyed, and making
interest --for what ? liar etiocearin bishops ? No; the re-
gular", that is to say, the Jesuits, were basely employed in
using their influence in order that 1/1410110 should nut he
sent over. lii Ifdi, a chapter of the Roman catholic clergy
appointed to exercise ejewmal jurisdiction during vacancies,
ISM bent over to It •to ees-k for another dioreean bishop
with ordinary powers. ; and they then said that they dare
host areept of any cetramlinary motto:ate —that is to say,
the appautawat of vicare-aperteilk, which at that time a 11.4
a title I believe wholly unknown in this country.
The chapter of the Roman catholic el. eery in 1017, nut
teethe the Smarts, but under the ciamitionsweidth, sent a
meielage too Rome, that they wanted elio-rean bishops, hut that
they date not accept of vicar. allo4OlielN cause that would he
against the laws of their catholic anee,tors and against the
wall of the state. Meer.) In 1060 the clergy had an
meat at Ronne, Ur. lime, who was also engaged in striving
SO induce the court of Rome to give them ordinary bishop,.
And what was the carcase for which they were asked ?
Why. they said that if they had apostolic vicars (I am
now quoting Dr. Ihrringtoon), the effect would lw to coo-
oe tem- distinctly lilt' ulea Of dependence upon the Pope,
.int the people wen jeislonse of all these prerogatives of the
court of Rome and were resolved not to permit them.
(Rear, hear.) 1 know that these iii tail" are wearisome,
but they are important. (('heers.) So strung was this dis-
meitiem of the English 141.111211 catholic,, to seek diocesan
bisluoie. that they Al i 11311) made up their minds to apple,
net to the Pope, but to the Antrbishop elf ltuuen, who,
from the well known disposition of the Gallivan church,
they thought would ho' favourable to them. The arch-
',Amp agreed to maws-rite bishop., but the court of Rome
int.-trend, and would only allow these very vicars apostolic
of which we have so recently fallen in love. (Cheers.) In
1621 there was a general ivesembly of the clergy and Charles
the Find, as had James the First, made nu objection
to the appointment of bishop', but only recommended
them not to receive any person with extraordinary powers
from Rome. In 1664 the clergy again made the attempt,
had they and the laity again refused vicar-apostolic, on the
it 1 that they durst not receive any such dignitaries.
In 1670 it WAS exactly the same. In 16511 there was a most
remarkable occurrence. At that jwirioel an important con-
troversy was rising ,an amongst the Rom: tat catholies with
regard to the oath of allegiance. The moderate party was
(astound& to, the oath. but the papal party was as much
against it. They %anted a lever to act upon the Woman
catholic, in England, to induce them to refuse the oath of
allegiance; and what was the lever they employed ? Why,
the y made use of this very subject, and they said, " Un-
less you will support the Pope by refusing the oath, we will
not give you diocesans." I ask then whether it is not '
the "ere bva¢ht eetharelehip and injustice when the ancestors
of the Roman eatholie, of the preseent day had persevered
all along in pressing their claim for diocesan bishope, and
when their loyalty to the crown and their sense of duty as
citizens watch nut suffer them to consent to such terms as
were rev rind, and when their prayer was rejected for this
mane -I ask is it possible to conceive a greater and a
greaser injustice, now when they hare obtained what they
wished, to charge them with a want of loyalty and with a
divided allegiance- ? (laved cheer'.) We now come to the
revolution. In lees a, when James the Second eame
to the throne, the Roman catholic hotly still made
their petition for diocesan bishops; and when, at
length, sitars apostolic were appointed, they again
protested against them, because they said vicars apostolic
would leave them no independent power; besides which,
their administration would be wholly arbitrary and uncer-
tain. tttheers.) They said that government by vicars
apostolic was against the spirit of the ancient law., and that
it would bring them under the immediate jurisdiction of a
foreign court, aaaina the jurisdiction of which court,
whether ecielesiaaticial or civil, their catholic [MCCOWN had
fought, and against which they were themselves pledged
to stand up. (Chairs.) James answered that he would
admit no spiritual person with ordinary powers; and
iieconlingly a vicar apostolic was appointed. The
hem,. will wee the uniformity with which the
clergy and laity had protested and declaimed against the ap-
pointment of vicars apostolic, and I want to know if I have
ma given ample proof that down to the time of the
Iteeolutien the Boman catholice—that is, the lay Roman
catholic+ and the secular clergy—of England were ever
reeking and contending for this measure of diocesan epis-
celiac" ; that the force which withheld them from their
object was that of the court of Rome and those bodies
which are most properly called papal; and that they only
desired to TYCrilit• dim-earn bishops till we come to the time
of the traitor Jame., who forced them to receive vicars epos-
t fife. (Lroud cheers) 1 have no evidence for the hundred
yeses which succeeded ; and we now come to a period when
severe penal laws were enacted against the Roman catholies.
The Pope then sent vicara-apostolie; anal the Roman
catholic, gut on as well as they could with them. At the
same time, I beg the house to obverse that directly the Ro-
man catholic booty was enabled, in homely phrase, to get
their heads above weer again—directly that you repealed
or relaxed the penal laws, again appeared this introduction
of a diocesan episcopacy. (Cheers.) And now with re-
spect to the manner in which the question has been looked
upou by the British government. I think it is demonstrated
that that great man, Mr. Pitt, had a distinct opinion upon
this subject ; and I hope ((said the hon. gentleman, turning
to the conservative beaches) there is not one of us
who is ashamed to march under his banner. (Cheers.)
It is plain that Pitt entertained views the very opposite of
thaw• which are held by the noble lord, and which I am
afraid a majority of the house are going to affirm.
(Ministerial cliete..) I will not waste any tame in consi-
dering the multitude of questions which his enlightened
mind would have valved for England had his power been
equel to his will; but I will only endeavour to thole you
what his opinion upon this subject was. I am sorry to say
that his biographies are all so imperfect that I can obtain
no direct authority. This, however, I can show—l can

show what the Roman catholic body did when a I
direct communication was held with them by the govern-
ment and Mr. Pitt, with a view to his Relief Bill, •
which was paned in 1791. In December, 1790, Mr. flumey
was sent to Rome to smooths. the way for the Relief Bill.
The people went then justly jealous of the increase, of the
Roman catholice; and the meaeure met with considerable
opposition. Therefore the Roman catholics sent an envoy ,
to Rome, for the purpose of representing them in a variety ,
of matters, some of which are irrelevant to this subject— '
but one of them was to smooth the way for Mr. Pitt's I
bill, by procuring bishops in ordinary elected by
the other clergy. (Cheers.) I will not go into details,
hut in the year 1790 1.4. John Cox Hippialey resided in '
linage as the agent of the English Roman catholics, and
his constant endeavour was to smooth the way to an under- '
standing between the Pope and the British government. 1
Ile; invariable stipulation wag that the vicars apostolic '
should be withdrawn, and that diocesan bishops should he I
substituted in their room. (Cheers.) But perhaps you will ,
say that these are not bishops elected by the clergy.
(Cheers.) That is very true. I should be glid if they were
to be elected ; but 1 look on this as the first step towards
election by the clergy. (Cheers.) It is the establishment
of the local principle, which as long as this 'Teem of vicars ;
vestolic is maintained can never take root. (Cheere.) I
Ton admit that the catholies are distinguished
Ike their loyalty, and therefore deal with them
se se to gain all their love and affection to their country.
ginsets.) But if you drive them hack upon the Pope, if you 1
e meet thm with this enactment, if you show them nothing
eke but a persecuting deposition, what can you expect but
to find that you have alienated and estranged them ?
(Cheers.) In England the Roman catholic party is com-
parutively insignificant in numbers, and you may be inclined
to underrate their importance ; but the difficulty on the other
side of the Channel, where there is an overwhelming ma-
jority, will be fearfully increased. Ilave you any faith 1
in your free institutions? Do you think so low of Eng-
land ? 1)o you think so low of the national character ? Do
you think so low of the capacity of your religion to bear the
brunt of free competition, as to say that you will now at-
tempt to fence it about with legal enactments, instead of
trusting to its spiritual strength, to the firmness mid
depth of your own convictions, and, above all, to
this conviction, that if the truth is on your side,
'Clod will give you the victory. (Cheers.) Oh,
I hope you will cast away those unworthy means of fencing
that which, if it required to be so fenced, would be little
worth. (Hear.) It may he said, this is a trilling retro-
gression. Of course it is a Dalin; retmeereseion. All suek
retrogrcasions will begin by small measures. (hear.) Bat
what security have I, if I vote for the second reading of this
bill, and 1 desert the ground of principle which binds me I
to religious freedom—what security have I that other and
more tisrmidahle measures may nut be in the background, and
that fur another half century, it may be, that the question
of civil disqualification and the question of religious
bberty are to abased our time and attention—that
these may divide the minds of the British public, separate
man and man, and disaslee parliaments, and unmet
ministers, and stop the progress of civilising legislation ?
(Cheers.) Don't tell me the character of the noble lord
(J. Russell) is a security against all this. If you tell me
his pledges, and the uniform course of his life, is such a
security, I answer, I once thought it WAS. (hear, hear.)
But, if you prophecy that the noble lord will not proceed
to prohibit the synodical action of the Roman church, and
that he will not proceed to prohibit that system of excep-
tion, prescription with regard to other denominations,
I ask, "What would you have thought if you had
been told, or rather if you had been foretold, in
the year DOI, that he would in March, ISil, bring in a bill
to prohibit the assumption of titles by Itomish eceleseatice ?
(" Hear, hear,', and cheers.) Would you have believed
that then ? Are you going to undo in the last
half century what your greatest men did in the
former? (Mar.) No, surely not. Recollect your
functions in the face of the world. Recollect that
Europa and the civilised world look to England, and look
to her now more, I believe, than ever they looked, its the mile
tress and guide of nations in regard to the great work of civil
legislation. And what is it they chiefly admire in you ?It is not
the rapidity and acuteness with which you frame constitu-
tions and approach :distract theories. On the contrary,
they know that abstract theories are opposed to your views,
and that you resist what is new until you know its safe and
beneficial tendency; but they also know that, when you
make a step onward, you keep it—that there is a reality
and an honesty about you—that you are not a monarchy one
day, a republicanism another, and a military despotism the
third day ; but that you are free from those vicissitude,.
(Hear.) I say your fathers and yourselves have earned this
brilliant character. Do not forfeit it. Do not al-
low it to he tarnished. Show, if you will, to
the Pope, and his cardinals, and his church, which boasts
of its immutability, that you have sour centre diadem, and
that when England has made an advance in the great prin-
ciple of public legislation, destined to influence her national
character, and to mark the course of her policy for ages, to
conic—show that when she has done this, slowly, it may be,
with hesitation and difficulty, but deliberately, she can no
more retrace her steps than the river that bathes this giant
city can Now hack in its course. (Loud cheer.) Ot the
character of England we are steward+. Let us feel our re-
' sponsibility, and understand that if we make this
step backwards. it is a step that will recoil upon the
national character. (Hear, hear.) No, sir, we are
here strong in the consciousness of a strong cause.
My Ann. and learned friend the member for alidhuret
(Mr. Walpole), said he would claim justice on his side.
Ile has the eloquence that bids fair to earn for him a
place in the first ranks of parliamentary distinction.
(Hear, hear.) Ile is sustained on this occasion, out of
our., by strong popular feeling, and he is sustained here
by the compact organisation of the government and the
opposition. We have none of these aids. We are in a
minority insignificant—more insignificant still, because we
have no ordinary bond of union anemia us. (Hear.) We
are in ensure of twos and threes. We net, however, be•
cause we have a conviction of justice, and that we shall wen
see on our side the force of public opinion. (Loud ironical
laughter.) Well, sir, lam not conscious of having spoken
offensively. I would feel extremely sorry if I said any-
thing in any part of my speech that would wound. (Hear.)
But we, minority as we are, are sustained in part by a coo-
-1 sciousitees that we serve both a generous cause and a gene-
rous people, and that that generous people will recognise
the truth of the farts we represent to them. But we are
also sustained by that maw of juaice which we feel be-
longs to our cause, because we are determined to follow
kat bright star of justice, beaming from heaven, whither-
never it may lead us. The right lion. gentleman re-
amed his scat amid loud and long-continued cheering,
particularly from the Irish members.
Mr. DIaItAELI maintained that whatever their opinion
ef the aggression, it was not wise to despise the
the who had committed it. (Ileac, hear.) He de-
nied that the Pepe was a prince of no great power. Ile
was a prince of very great power, if not the greatest. Be-
tween regular and secular clergy the Pope had ut his corn-
ailtilli an army of one million priests, governed by a
thousand biehops and nrchbiehope that could only be
taunted by the score—the generals and lieutenants-general
of this disciplined host. And were they to be told that that
}serer was to he treated in the same manner, and considered
k the same spirit as the Wesleyan conference, or to be
amociated with the last invention of the Scotch dissenters?
(Hear, hear.) Such comparisons were only the display
of dialectics to adorn the debate. But, considering
the eminent talents of those who had indulged in
' them, he could not help suspecting that there was a
I concealed object in those comparisons of more pregnant in-
terest. And that had been scarcely concealed by the right
hon. gentleman who had last addressed the house, for he
asked, "If you apply this doctrine of the Queen's supre-
macy to the adherents of the Roman catholic communion,
en what plea can you refuse to apply it to the Wesleyan
conference or the Scotch church ?" But the converse of the
proposition was equally true; and if the interpretation of
religious liberty supported by the right hon. gentleman and
the hon. member for Plymouth (Mr. Palmer), and now
countenanced by the church of Rome, was to be accepted
by the house, on what plea could they refuse to apply the
same principle of religious liberty to the church of Eng-
land ? (Hear, hear.) Why was she not to have synodical
action? (Cheere.) Why was the church of England to
acknowledge the supremacy of the Queen? Amid the
.1.3 of troubles in which they were embarked, that
had Permed to him a guiding principle ; but the
only inference to be drawn from the new philo-
eophy presented in so many shapes by the right ho-
nourable gentleman and his friends was, that they were
opposed on principle to the alliance between church and
state. (Hear, hear.) Ile could not deal with this question
of papal aggression on the abstract principles so adroitly
introduced • he must look to the circumstances which sur-
rounded them; and they were of a significant character.
On one side, there was a great and acknowledged revival of
Romanism in Europe. No one denied that there was a
counter-revival of protestantism in England. (Hear,
hear.) The possible result was one which made
him shudder; and the government were only doing
their duty, if they thought such a contest might take
place in this kingdom between Romanism and pro-
teetantiern, by proposing measures and advising a line
of conduct in their opinion calculated to prevent such
mischief and counteract such evils. But was the mea-
sure of the government competent to prevent the mischiefs
they contemplated ? The noble lord had introduced this
measure in a speech which produced considerable effect.
He (Mr. Disraeli) had ventured to say at the time that the
proposition was nut equal to the programme, that the mea-
sure asserted no principle and vindicated no principle.
Forty-eight hours afterwards they had another version of
the measure, not then introduced, from the chief law officer
of the crown ; and in that version it assumed a more im-
portant character. The Attorney-General had informed
them that the government measure was not merely to deal
with the titles illegally assumed by Roman catholic pre-
lates, but to intertere with bequests and endowments to
persons assuming those characteristics, and also to deal
with synodieal action. What was the third act in the
MC&111110 All the projects of the Attorney-General
were suddenly withdrawn, and they were told that they
were only, though formally, to discuss a hill containing one
clause. And when the Secretary of State made this an-
nouncement, he scarcely concealed the opinion that the
measure would be inoperative in Ireland, and might be
evaded in England, but that it was necessary to pass it as a '
demonstration and a protest. (Hear, hear.) What more
triumphant vindication of the policy recommended by Lord
Stanley? (Heat, hear.) If the best course to take clearly
was for this country to protest in the face of Europe, would
not a protest in the form of an address to the two at ease, of
parliament, on the very day they met after this great national
agitation, have been more calculated to affect the opinion of
Lunme, and sustain the spirit of England, than the project
of a law which, in the course of six weeks, had undergone
countless transformations—which was now announced by its
projectors to be ineffective, and the fate of wch was
perhaps more than doubtful? (Hear, hear.) He would
briefly place before the house the reasons why he disapproved

of the government measure. The bet was, that by impli-
cation it confessed that the conduct of the cardinal of
which they complained was not illegal. That conduct
must have been legal or illegal. If legal, it was not an
offence; if illegal, why not deal with it by the taw? It
was said the law was obsolete. An obsolete law was a law
that dealt with circumstances no longer existing, and which I
could not again occur. The circumstances in the present
ease were fresh and flagrant. The law was ancient, but it
was not obsolete; and it was treason against the liberties
of England to pretend that ancient laws were obsolete, be•
cause all our liberties depended on ancient laws. (Hear,
hear.) Secondly, he ohjected to this bill bemuse it at-
tempted to legislate upon phrases, and not upon facts.
(Hear, hear.) It attempted to legislate upon titles. It
was clear that if they p toed that law, no person who could
be subjected to it would ever place himself in a position
to be so eubjected ; yet lie would not the less use the title
awl exercise the influence which was the consequence of his
office. (Hear, hear.) The whole thing was founded on a
fallacy; for if they chose to legislate upon titles, they
should not legislate against the assumption of titles by
bishops of the Roman catholic church, but against the as-
cription of titles of honour and dignity tothem by her Ma-
jesty's ministers. (Hear, hear.) What a mockery it was,
when ministers had been " My Grace-ing," and " My Lord-
ing," these very individuals, to propose a penal statute, be-
cause they were treated by the rest of her Majesty's subjects
with respect and honour. (Hear, hear.) It could not
be questioned that this bill asserted no principle. It
would have asserted a principle had it laid down that no
person should accept place, dignity, emolument, or office,
civil or ecclesiastical, from a foreign prince, except with the
consent of her Majesty. (ilaar, hear.) That would have
been a principle; it would have been a rational enactment,
it would at least have taken the form of statesmanlike pre-
caution, instead of an apparent spiteful act against popery.
Such an arrangement as that would have brought the
Roman catholic bishop under its provisions in on honour-
able manner. (Hear, hear.) It might be mid that the
isonsent of the crown would be equivalent to a veto: hut he
(Mr. Disraeli) denied it would. (Hear, hear.) lie was
sot going to argue that question at such an hour—(halt=
past one o'clock)—hut he asserted that by such an arrange-
ment the Roman catholic bishops would receive their ap-
pointments as hon. gentlemen after being elected by con-
Mitnenrice took their seats in that house, on taking the
(laths. (Hear.) He felt, however, the impossibility, after
so protracted a debate, after the elaborate speech
they had just heard concluded, and at ao late an
hour of the night, to enter into a discussion
of the question, as it was his wish to do. (Hear, hear.)
He felt he had a great difficulty in hand to criticise the
government measure. The relations that existed between
the noble lord (Lord John Ruseell) and himself were not
favourable to a candid criticism. (" Hear, hear," and it
lamella if the noble lord were, indeed, his " noble friend"
—(laughter)—and if there still existed between them that
relation of friendship, even of affection—(a laugh)—he
(Mr. Disraeli) would avail himself of the proud privilege
of such mutual sensibility, 'and the noble lord might rest
assured he would spare neither his policy nor his Pei hogs.
(" Hear, hear," and great laughter, in which Lord J.
Russell and Sir J. Graham heartily participated.)
I And that reminded him that, whilst he had been attempt-
ing to prove that the measure then introduced by the
government was inefficient, and one for the second reading
of which he would only vote for the reason that had been
already expressed by his hon. and learned friend (Sir F.
Thesiger), without pledging himself to the ultimate sup-
port of the measure ; it reminded him, he repeated, that,
whilst expressing his opinion sincerely, and after due con-
sideration, the bill would be inefficient, as in England it
would be evaded, whilst in Ireland it would be inopera-
tive, a party of the greatest importance had treated it in n
different spirit, and described it in different language.
Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to comment upon the speech of
Mr. Gladstone, remarking that the hon. member had not
always refused his assent to a measure because it was the
reversal of a Tolley. Adverting to some passages in the
address of Sir J. Graham, he alluded to the probable
junction of the right honourable baronet with the
ministry, and concluded by saying that he did not
believe there was a chance of civil war in Ire-
land. (Hear, hear.) lie believed with the right
honourable gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that religious
liberty was too deeply impressed in the present age tee such
an act as the prevent to stimulate the population of that
country. (Hear, hear.) It was impassible in this age that
Irelana could be governed on the principle of protestant
ascendancy. (Hear, hear.) But it was equally true that
no government could exist which was not faithful and de-
voted to the protestant constitution. (Loud cheers.) In
its maintenance were involved greater interests than the
fate of a government —the fate of a crown, and the destinies
of a mighty empire; and trust me (continued the hon. gen-
tleman) not the less important or precious interest involved
is that of the civil and religious liberty of the Roman ea-
, tholita themselves. (Loud cheers.)
Sir 0. GREY said he could assure the house it was with
reluctance that, at that advanced hour of the night (quarter
to 2 o'clock), and after so protracted a debate, he rose to
I offer himself fur a brief period to the attention of the house.
But lie felt it his duty, before the debate closed, to make
few observations with reference, not to the arguments that
had been addressed to the house in opposition to the second
reading of the bill; because, having listened to
the debate, he was struck with this fact, that
the most able of the opponents of the bill—
whilst exhibiting great talent, ingenuity, and, he
would say, sophistry. —brought forward no argument
as to the real principle involved. (Hear, hear.) It
had been asserted by Roman catholic gentlemen, to whom
lie entertained no feeling but one of friendship
and respect, that there was embodied in the bill
a principle of religious persecution. (Hear, hear.)
Though that assertion had been made, he challenged any
hon. member to prove it. (Hear, hear.) He entirely con-
curred in the views of the right hon. gentleman, the mem-
ber for the University of Oxford, that the principle which
should guide them on the present occasion, was the consi-
deration of imperial policy. Ile wished it to he distinctly
understood that the bill was not introduced bl•Callse there
was a religious contest between Roman catholies and pro-
testiuite. The Roman catholics would be as free as ever
they were to propagate their opinions, and he could
not regret, on that ground,-that the Pope had taken
the present step, seeing that it had served to
evoke such a spirit of attachment to the protestant religion
in the people of this country, and served to draw closer the
bonds of union between the different bodies of protestants,
not with a view to the imposition of restrictions on the
I Roman catholies, but because it tended to make them over-
look those minor differences which kept them apart. (Hear,
heir.) There were two points in which the question before
the house had to he considered. The tint was, whether this
step on the pet of the see of Rome was such an
aggression on the sovereignty of the Queen and the
sovereignty of the nation as to call for the in-
terference of parliament ; and secondly, if that were
so, whether this was th proper measure for parlia-
ment to adopt. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible not to be
struck with the diversity in the views of those who opposed
the measure of the government. (Hear.) The hon. and
learned member for Plymouth, in a speech, the great ability
of which he was ready to do justice to, said that the act or
die Pepe was based on the principle of religious freedom,
that it was sot opposed to the law of nations, and that it
was nememry to the complete organisation of the Roman
catholic eipmah, and comparing it with the free church of
Scotland sad the Wesleyan organisation, he maintained that
parliament ought to he indifferent to the attempt of the Pope.
But that is not the view taken by the right hon. gentleman
the member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell), who, though he
came to the same conclusion as the hon. and learned gen-
tleman the member for Plymouth, thought, nevertheless,
that the measure did not go far enough. (Hear.) Ile
even used the remarkable expression, that he would not
engage in a " little religious war," and hinted that he
would be ready to engage in a great religious war. (Hear.)
The right hon. gentleman the member for Wilts (Mr.
S. Herbert) followed on the same side, and intimated
that it was not against the Roman catholic subjects
of the crown, but against the Pope, that they should direct
their sets. He did not know what legislation the right
hon. gentleman had in view—whether he referred to a veto
on the appointment of bishops, or to a prohibition of all
intercouose with Rome, by inflicting severe penalties on
those who should act in contravention of the law by acting
under authority derived from Rome. The hon. gentleman
said it was a mere change from vicars apostolic to
bishops. He (Sir George Grey) was surprised at
that statement, for he found in the advertising columns
of a Wiltshire paper, of the 6th December, 1960, a resolu-
tion, proposed by the Right Hon. Sidney Herbert, and se-
conded by the Dean of Salisbury, in which the attempt of
the Pope of Rome to establish a Roman catholic hierarchy
was regarded with indignation, as an infringement of the
spirit and constitution of the realm—(cheers)—as involving
an unwarrantable attack on the prerogatives of the
Queen, and a gross insult to the British people—
(hear, hear) which they would meet with the most
uncompromising and determined resistance. (Hear, hear.)
And this, be it recollected, took place six weeks or two (From last Night's Casette.)
months after the publication of the papal rescript, so that ST. 7131Ei'S-PALACF, 'MARCH 24.--The Queen has
there was ample time given for consideracion and reflection. been pleased to a poi the Hon. Beatrice Byng to be one
the (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman seemed to indicate of honour in Ordinary to her Majesty, • the
that he entertained the same opinions still. If that were so, room of the Hon. Caroline Dawson, resigned. in
he (Sir G. Grey) could only say that he gave them very im- FOREIGN-OFFICE, MARCII 24.—The Queen has been
perfect capresston in that house. (Hear, hear.) But that
pleased to approve of Mr. L. A. Van den Bergh as Consul
was not all. An address had been
meeting at which the resolutions had at
at Portsmouth of Mr 0 C Welsford as Consul at Wey-
mouth, and of'Mr.-Jolin.Banfield as Consul for Scilly, for
war,. hes Majesty the king of Hanover.
was not going to read that address, but the lan the
etit
s ac
orni ee.
twined wile a curiosity, and well worthy perusal. CROWN-OFFICE, MAReH 24.—The Queen has been
and " Read.") The right hon. gentleman was proceeding
to read the addrees when— pleased to appoint Matthew Davenport Hill, of Lincoln's-
Mr. S. HERBERT interposed, and said he would cove inn, in the county of Middlesex, Esq., to be one of the
the right hon. gentleman some trouble by informing him Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy, to act in the
that he refused to sign the address. (Hear.) prosecution of fiats in bankruptcy, in the country, in the
Sir 0. GREY said that he had then no more to say on I room of Ebenezer Ludlow, Sir cant-at-law, deceased.
that subject, except that the address bore a close eorrevoo. I CaowN-OFFICE, 'MARCH 24.—Member returned to
deuce in its language to the resolution he had read. There serve in this present parliament for the Borough of Thirsk :
was, indeed, a distinct paragraph at the end of the address' Sir William Payne (iallwey, Bart., in the room of John
which he did not intend to read, relatina to their own Bell, Esq., dirt:med.
church, which the right hon. gentleman might safely object I COMMISSION SIGNED BY THE LORD LIEUTENANT
to. (Hear.) But there was another resolution proposed at or LiNCASHIIIIE.—James Lomax, Esq., to be Deputy-
the meeting
_by the hon. colleagues of the right hon. Lieutenant.
gentleman (Mr. Sotberon) in favour of a petition to
both houses of parliament, the prayer of which petition was
that it might be made penal for any persons to assume terri-
torial titles conferred by any foreign authority in contempt
of the Queen's prerogative. (Cheers.) He brought for-
ward these things for the purpose of showing that the right
hon. gentleman was not the safest of guides when he called
on the house to reject the bill on the grounds he stated to
the house. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the
member for Ripon followed, and the right hon. gentleman
characterised the language of the Pope as arrogant
and needlessly offensive; and he likewise admitted that the
act was one which it was difficult for her Majesty's govern-
ment to pass over with indifference. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman pawed in review the different propo-
sitions which had been made, none of which seemed to be

satisfaetaey to hits ; and yet he left the house in entire in-
nomnee of the rouse he would be prepared to adopt. (Hear.)
Indeed. the only alternative which it seemed to him was
open to the right hon. baronet, after rejecting the various
propositions which had been made, was that of reviving the
penalties of the statute of prentinire, and that course—
and it seal worthy of observation—was distinctly advocated
by the bon. and learned member Aar Abingdon (Sir F.Thesi-
ger). But his noble friend had already stated the reasons
why he did not think it would he expedient to put in force
a statute which would have subjected the persons found
guilty under it to confiscation of all their goods and inde-
finite imprisonment. (Hear, hear.) Then came the right
hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford
(Mr. Uladetone). That right hon. gentleman qualified the ex-
preeeion used by the right hon. baronet themember for Itipon
in refer rase to the papal brief, for he said that the lan-
guague was " unfortunate and inexpedient." (Hear,
hear.) The suggestion of the right hon. gentleman was,
that they should have recourse to diplomatic agency, with
a distinct intimation, that if unsuccessful coercion was not
to be the result. (Hear, hear.) Now, ns his noble friend al-
ready said, would it be right for them to send a diplomatic
agent to Rome to appear with cap in hand before the Pope,
with .a view of inducing him to withdraw a brief, whkh
they were told by Roman catholic members could not be
withdrawn—(hear, hear)—hut, if it could be with-
drawn, they were not, in ease of refusal, to use
coercive measures against the Pope. (Hear, hoar.)
Throughout the argument there was an overlooking of the
inherent distinction between the church of Rome and the
various religious denominations referred to. He passed by
the three points on which they most essentially differed.
The first point was, that the Roman catholic hierarchy pro-
ceeded from a foreign power, without communica-
tion with, or the sanction of, the sovereign authority
of the realm. The ascend was, that it proceeded
from a foreign power which had from its origin down to the
present day been charticterixed by a mixture of spiritual and
temporal jurisdiction, claiming to be itself the sole judge of
the line of separation. (hear, hear.) The last point
WSW the claim of universal dominion, generally ad-
mitted to exist, on the part of the Romish
church. (Hear, hear.) He would appeal to any man
accustomed to consider the meaning of language whether
the papal documents did not involve a claim of tem-
poral as well a.e spiritual jurisdiction. (Hear, hear.
With regard to the objection that this bill would
interfere with the free exercise of the Roman catholic reli-
gion, be would ask hon. gentlemen who thought that
ouch would he its operation, whether they could state one
single cane in which, before the brief of the Pope, Roman
catholics had been debarred the free exercise of their reli-
gion, and in what way the free exercise of their religion
could be restrained after the measure had been pewit ?
If the opinion quoted by the hon. and learned member for
Dundalk was correct it would apply to the 24th section of
the Relief Act, and not to the present bill ; and the pre-
lates of Ireland would be little indebted to him for the dis-
covery. (Divide.) lie should only further allude to
the insinuation that the excitement in England was only one
of rival churches, and that the bill had been conceded to
placate a few titled meted:astir,. He denied the insinua-
tion, but the return of petitions on the table rendered any
denial on his part unnecessary. (Divide.) The feeling
was an English feeling, and was the same which our fore-
fathers had exhibited, when in all ages they had sedulously
set themselves to provide harriers against the temporal
power and aggreseions of the papacy. (The cries for a
division became here so vociferous as to render the right
hon. baronet almost inaudible.) lie was understood to say
that what he asked the house was to place the brand of il-
legality on those territorial titles which, once conceded,
would he used by the Pope for ulterior purposes. If they
rejected his proposal, they might initiate a religious war
throughout the country, and an universal demand fur mea-
sures more stringent than any that were at present contem-
plated. By passing the bill, they would allay the present
excitement, and, as lie believed, provide the best security
for what they all prised—the principles of civil and religious
liberty.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY rose to address
the house, under the impression that he had a right to
reply, but wee called to order by the Speaker.
Mr. S. HERBERT denied any knowledge of the docu-
ments quoted by the right hon. baronet the Secretary for
the Home Department. (A scene of considerable uproar
here ensued, and cries of " Hatchell " resounded from all
parts of the house, accompanied by much laughter.)
Mr. P. HOWARD protected against the assumption
that the Roman Catholics claimed any temporal power in
the establishment of a hierarchy. Re also protested against
the attempt to brand one-third of her Majesty's subjects.
Sir 0. UREY explained that he hail merely asked the
house to places brand of illegality on the recently assumed
titles.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw. The house di-
vided.
The numbers were—
For the second reading 438
For the amendment
The announcement of the numbers was hailed with load
cheers.
The bill was then read a second time.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that on Monday he would fix •
day fur going into committee.
Mr. ROCHE said it was important that there should be
a full attendance of Irish members on the committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would not appoint a day for
the committee before a fortnight titter the Easter recess.
(Hear.)
The committee was then appointed, pro forma, for Mon-
day next.
Mr. HUME asked when the budget would he brought on.
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed to take the army estimates
on Friday, when he would say when the budget would be
proposed.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice to the government that,
although he had voted for the ',mond reading, he should
move m committee certain ieringent clatters.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that atter the lengthened de-
bate they had had on the second reading of the bill, and the
late hour at which they were then sitting, he supposed it
might be agreeable to hon. metabers, as only one matter
wan to come on to-morrow, that the house should adjourn to
Thursday. (Cheers.)
The routine business having been disposed of, the house
adjourued at a quarter past three o'clock until Thursday.

THE CONTRIBUTION MAT WILL WIN THE PRIZE.—
It is rumoured that government intends sending to the
Crystal Palace copies M all the measures that have been
passed this year, as its contribution to the World's Exhibi-
tion of Industry !—l'unch.
CHILI AND RECIPROCITT.—WO read in the Val-
paroiso Neighbour of the 17th of January This govern-
ment, by a note from the Freach Charge d' Affaires,
' being informed that, after the tat of January, the French
government will admit Chilian vessels direct with Chilian
produce, to enter the ports of France on the same footing
with French vessels, finds itself at liberty to grant equal
exemptions to vesaels of France direct, and with French
products, entering ports of Chili."