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

EVENING, MARCH 26,

they had any intention—in the event of their continuing
to be her Majesty's adviseri—of acting on the report
Of their 14:71-dstupl,' Committee, by enchavouring to re-
Model the Law?

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought that the
clergy were under great obligation to the Noble Earl for
-bringing this subject under the consideration of the
House; but he knew not whether the prelates should feel
equal obligation for the contrast which the Noble Earl
had drawn between them and the clergy. Although the
Noble Earl's statement was in most respects true, it was
not impossible that the public might draw a wrong in-
ference from it. As long as the law remained in its pre-
sent state, the contrast which the Noble Earl had ad-
ironed to as existing between prelates and the clergy
with respect to contributions to the poor rate must con-
-I,tinue. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that
there was no part of the episcopal income which did not
siontribute to the rates, although not directly out of the
pockets of the prelates. The process was this—the pre-
Ltes paid the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the
commissioners paid the rates. The Noble Earl, however,
had made out a case for the clergy, and it certainly ap-
peared unjust that the personal services of that class,
without which they could not receive their incomes,
*ere not represented in the rent-charge.
Earl GREY believed that the Right Hon. President
of the Poor-law Board had given notice of his intention
in the other House of Parliament of introducing a Bill
for the purpose of effecting some alteration in the law of
settlement and parochial assessment. At the same time
he could give ne assuranoe that the proposed change in
the la, of settlement would be consistent with the Noble
Earl's views. As far as he understood the Noble Earl's
views ca the subject, he believed that it would be most
detrimental to the interests of the country to carry them
into effect.

Lord PORTMAN was understood to say that the ques-
tion with which the Noble Earl wished to deal was one
encompassed by many and serious difficulties. Whether
the Noble Earl intended to bring in a Bill to effect this
object utder another Administration he did not know,
but he !ould advise him to pause before attempting to
legislate to the subject. The clergyman referred to by
the Nobli Earl, as paying 10s. in the pound for rates,
paid no fore than the other ratepayers in the same
parish. That the area of rating should be extended he
would adait, but that was not the tithe owner's grievance.
The Earl of MALMESBURY, with reference to what
had faller from the primate, disclaimed the remotest
intention of casting a stigma upon the Right Reverend
prelates. _

7 The Bislop of OXFORD maintained that the clergy
were sufferng under a grievance which demanded re-
dress. Thtt proposition he submitted to the Committee
of last session, and it was negatived by two votes only,
and if his two Right Rev. Brothers who were associated
with him on the Committee had been present on the oc-
casion the v)tes would have been equal on either side.
By a strict adherence to the letter of the law, it was held
that the personal services of the clergy must not be taken
into considetation with reference to the payment of rates;
but if the lay were strictly interpreted in another res-
pect all property should be equally charged for the sup-
port of the Nor. Souse time subsequently to the pass-
ing of the Odd of Elizabeth it was found desirable, from
motives of convenience, to exempt personal propery
from direct assessment, and that object was effected
in a roundabout way. As long as agriculture was
protected the consummer indirectly contributed to
the support of the poor. Now, however, that the law
had been altered—as he thought wisely—and the price
of wheat was regulated not by the expense of produc-
dor, but by the cheapest rate at which it could be
brought in from other countries, the consumer was re-
lieved from his indirect contribution to the rates; and
the whole burden was cast upon the landed proprietor
and the titheowner. This circumstance constituted a
claim, not for the reversal of free trade, but for a re-
consideration of the principle on which rates were levied.
He was satisfied it would be found the law pressed
heavily on a most deserving body of men, the parochial
clergy of the Church of England.
Lord BEAUMONT thought their Lordships had
allowed one error to run through their speeches in not
regarding rates as taxes on property. There was no
injustice at present, as all real property was rated on the
same principle; but, if the rates were reduced on one
description of teal property on account of services ren-
dered, there wculd be an unjust distinction between the
rates on the same kind of property. He did not wish to
see income rated to poor-rates, but thought realized per-
sonal property fairly liable.
Lord PORTIIA.N observed that there were duties
rendered by lay impropriators which did not procure
them exemption from rating—for example, there were
services as high sheriffs, on grand juries, and in the
militia.

After a few words from the Earl of Malmesbury, Lord
Wodehonse, and the Earl of Hardwicke, the petitions
was ordered to Le on the table.

THE CGMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Earl of RODEN presented petitions agains►
Papal aggression from Cavan, Dublin, Down, and other
places.
Earl GREY presented petitions in favour of the Copy-
hold Enfranchisement Bill.
Their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 25.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.

is expedient for the better education of the poor that a
systtm of national education should be established, to be
supported by local texati,n.
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS ABROAD.

Sir R. H. INGLIS rose to put a question to the
Under-Secretary for the Colonies, of which he had given
notice. whether any answer had been returned to the
dispatch (with an inclosure) addressed by his Excel-
lency Sir Charles Fitzroy, on the 30th July, 1850,
to her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the
Colonies (endorsed as received in Downing•street on
the 4th January, 1851); and if no answer had
been sent, to explain the cause of the delay. And also
to call his attention to certain inaccuracies in the printed
copy of the said communication, as laid before the
House, in answer to their address of the 24th February,
1851, and ordered to be printed (No. 105) on the 10th
March, 1851. With regard to the first question, per-
haps, the House would allow him to recall to its remem-
brance that three or four years ago an order was issued
by the Colonial Secretary, that the bishops of the Roman
Catholic Church in the colonies should be treated with
the same distinction as those of the Established Church.
This produced a remonstrance from the Bishop of Sydney
that precedence was given to the individual, which was
denied to the office, thus leaving untouched the great
question, namely, the right of a foreign potentate to
give dignities to which precedency was attached.
Mr. HUME begged to interrupt the Hon. Baronet;
ho was going into details which could not at present be
discussed.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL said, that perhaps it would be
better to defer the subject for the present, as of course
there was another side to the case.

The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Baronet had cer-
tainly a right to proceed as he was merely stating facts
connected with his question, and not opinions.
--Sir R. H. INGLIS continued—This mode of settle-
ment of the question had been disputed by the Bishop
of Sydney,and severaldispatches had passed on the subject.
The next question he wished to ask was, whether the
last, five lines of the first paragraph of the dispatch
was a correct expression of the feelings of the Govern-
ment on this point.

Mr. HAWES said that the paper which the Hon
Member held iu his hand was not in correct accordance
with the dispatch which had been:sent out from the Colo-
nial-office. The fact was that the error arose from a
typographical error. With regard to its effect in the
colony he could give no reply, for no answer had been
received to the observations made in return upon the
dispatch received in this country on the 4th of January
last.

1851.

arose out of that common law; and thirdly the decisions
made under it were at all times liable to be reversed
on an appeal to the sovereign of the realm.
If, thee, in thole three great particulars it was liable to
be subject to the common law of the land, how could it
become the dangerous agent which so many persons had
represented ?—(Hear, hear.) He was not surprised that
the Roman Catholic laity of the kingdom desired to
have the existence of this law more practically effi-
cient amongst them, for they desired the presence
of a body of eminent men who would be able to settle
questions upon just and right grounds, which were now
too often decided only by prejudice or caprice.—(Hear.)
That was the real state of the case—(Hear)—but they
acted as if there was something improper or immoral in
this law. They knew that such was not the fact, and
he would ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment, whether it was right—whether it was becoming—
whether it was decent to raise at this time of day a cry of
"No Popery" in the country ?—(Loud cheers, and counter
cheers.) The canon law was at this time part of the
law of England, it had been so, and would continue to be
so, without any question of the validity of its decisions,
until the Court of Queen's Bench should come
to any different result upon matters which
had been submitted to the operation both of the canon
and the common law.—(Hear, hear.) They talked of
the doctrines which this law would be likely to
strengthen. He believed that many honest and able
men in the Church of England were sincere believers in
many of those doctrines.—(Cheers and counter cheers.)
And they might talk of the effect of those doctrines; but
when he saw an eminent minister of the Church of
England obliged to be protected from personal violence
by police when in the performance of his pastoral
duties, he thought the less they dwelt upon the
effect or the liberality of those doctrines the better.
He would call the attention of the House to an incident
which occurred to Bishop Butler. That Right Reverend
Prelate contended for external religion, and he was
branded as a Papist for it—mistakenly branded, of
course. Now, he thought the Tractarians could,
like the great author of the Analogy, afford
to treat the opposition raised against them
with contempt, but he warned the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government that this Bill would not set this
matter at rest. As yet they were only on the threshold
of the excitement, and to him it seemed fearful to con-
template the results which would inevitably follow the
passing of the Bill. But it was said that the Church
of Rome was despotic and intolerant, and fur

that reason it was necessary to have a law of this cha-
racter in this country. Now was ever before an argumen-
bait ad horninem more absurd than that presented to the
House? Because Rome was intolerant, the country
ought to be intolerant too. Such an argument
was so worthless that it hardly merited a reply.
and he had only referred to it for the purpose of
protesting against its introduction into this debate.
There was another topic upon which he wished to say
a few words. The Noble Lord the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs told them the other night that the Bill was a
complement to the Catholic Emancipation Act. Now
he allowed that one of the clauses of that Act, to a
certain extent, prohibited the assumption of titles
but he denied most emphatically that it prohibited their
establishment of a hierarchy, like that which the Pope
had recently created, and he hoped that argument,
like the other one he had just mentioned, would be
abandoned without delay.—(Hear, hear.) Instead
of promoting animosities between the two churches, the
Legislature ought to strive to apply itself to soothing the
angry feelings which prevailed out of doors, for he be-
lieved the Church of England had more to fear from
irreligion than from the proceedings of Christian Rome,
and he therefore called upon the Government to retrace
its steps and rather assist the two churches
in stemming the torrent of Atheistic principles,
than strive to promote religious fanaticism and discord
by a useless system of legislation. The Church of
Rome ignored the existence of the Established
Church of this country, and he would recom-
mend the Government to return the compli-
ment, and treat these bishops as phantoms
or nonentities which could not be grasped. That was
the only safe way of dealing with the
so-called Papal aggression ; and though the
Noble Lord could not recede from this Bill
without injuring his own reputation, or proceed
with it without producing great mischief, he recom-
mended the House to adopt the suggestion at once.
He hoped, in conclusion, that as the Noble Lord valued
tho peace, security, welfare, and prosperity of this great
country, he would desist from proceeding with his fatal
Bill.—(Cheers.)
Mr. PORTAL, in rising to make his
maiden speech, begged the indulgence of the
House for a few momenta while he stated
the reasons which induced him to vote against the second
reading of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He could not admit
that the Bill consisted of that judicious mixture of good
and evil alleged by those who supportid it; so far from
it, it was totally impotent for good, and all powerful
for evil, while it was calculated to foment
and excite religious controversy and dissension
throughout the country, the injurious effect of which
might remain for many years to come.—(Cheers.)
The Bill was just large enough to irritate the Roman
Catholics in Ireland, and not large enough to sa-
tisfy the Protestants of England.—(Hear.) He fully
shared in the indignation and resentment which
the act of the Pope had excited a spiritual
inwasion which literally ignored the existence of our
own Church; but he disagreed with those who thought
the measure of the Government was a proper one to meet
the, difficulty. The Bill was a mere mockery and delu-
sion, ulike unworthy the deliberative wisdom of that as-

sernbly and the dignity of this great country.
:Mr. J. O'CONNELL spoke the opinion of the whole
of the Roman Catholic body when he affirmed that the
Po;pe had no temporal jurisdiction in this country. He
did not think that anything that had transpired in the
course of the debate had at all advantaged the case in
favour of the Bill; and it was clear that no Crown
la s'yer would so far risk his reputation as to assert that
the supremacy of the Crown in religious matters was at
all: consonant with the common law. Blackstone, who
weeuld not have hesitated to assert such a doctrine, had
it existed, had said nothing of the kind. He did not
mean to enter into the subject, because the Right lion.
Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) had
in a few sentences admirably refuted all that could be
staid upon it. He trusted that the Right Hon. Gentleman
would go on in the course he had commenced, for the
people of Ireland would appreciate his sentiments and
his desire to protect them from insult, and to place them
on a footing with the other subjects of the empire. At
the same time it was a part of the case that Roman
Catholics could scarcely be called upon to argue, be-
cause it was the very essence of their religion that they
should allow the absolute supremacy and power of the
Pope; and if any kings in former times had denied
that supremacy they had ceased to be Catholics. In
speaking of the affairs of Switzerland, thee Noble Lord at
the head of the Foreign-office stated that the Protestant
majority in that country had a right to interfere with
the education of the children of the Catholic cantons,
simply because they were the majority. Was that doc-
trine to be entertained by this country, because, if so, he
eonfessed that he should think it of the most startling
ceeesequence to the people of Ireland, for, though the Ca-
tholics formed the majority in Ireland, they were yet the
minority in the empire? It was no unreasonable fear
upon his part that such might be the ease; and it was
remarkable that there had been no answer from the
Preasury bench to the eminent legal opinions that had
been quoted to show that the first clause of the proposed
Mill carried with it all the venom, and would have BB
the practical effect of the others which had been struck
out. The Most Rev. Prelate the Catholic Archbishop
of .Armagh had been moat peculiarly the subject of unfair
attack in the course of the debate. But it was not tine
that Dr. Cullen was a man ignorant of Ireland. air
was
the representative for many years, and chosen
agents of
'tand he
this Catholic bishops of Ireland at Roc"'
had therefore the most intimate acquaintancenovel act on
with
tle) affairs of Ireland. His choice
th prrt of the Pope; but the
novel practice;
liesland being required was a perfectlye and
when ho
consentwe no
bishops of
thrtt was a concession made by the.PeP 'He had done so
chose he might revoke that concession. Fie
fee found that
in 'this case for a most laudable p P
the Roman Catholic episcopacyblandishrn of the Go-
. had °been divided among
themselves by the arts and
ustrious man, of whom Ire-
ver nment, and he had selectedi Dr. Cullen, who was no
m rink, but an eminent and illustrious
d. [The Hon. Gentleman
la ad had reason to be Prt°hue pastoral of Dr. Cullen, to
re ad several extracts fro,ryn
condemned secret societies,
show that he had stt•ocal
strongly condemned
the upholding of treason-
th e preaching of sedition,Complaints had been made of the pro-
able practices.] dof Thurles, but what crime was
ce ridings of the Synod
subjec
t
of su t
there in the declarations of that synod on the
of education?
It had been distinctly laid down by
writers of the English Protestant
egli.sh Church that education
wree a matter
within the province of the bishops and
pastors of that Church, and this principle had only
been carried out by
the Catholic prelates. [To show
th a of the mixed system of education, the
danger
Member read some extracts from the evi-
Honourable
. _by a professor in 1827 before the Perlin-
dence given
ontary commission of inquiry into the Belfast educe-
mtitaaal institutions, who aderitted that he did not con-
sider Jesus Christ to be God, but believed him to be a
created being.] A professor of ono of those institu-
tions also wrote a work of such infidel tendencies that
w
his brother professors, although no two of them enter-
tai aed the same religious belief, were completely
shreeked, and called him to account. It was, then, a
mcckery to say that there was no danger in this mixed
system of education, when such men were allowed to
exercise the office of professors, and the law h.ld no
right to require that Catholics should place their chil-
dren in such establishments. But the Noble Lord (Lord
J. :Russell) had endeavoured to cast a slur upon the
loyalty of Catholics because they would not violate
their conscientious feelings by accepting these institu-
s. That wag a most audacious insinuation, and he
(Kr. O'Connell) threw it back with indignation. In
1844 the Noble Lord declared that he thought it a foolish
prohibition to prevent Roman Catholic bishsps from
sty ling themselves by the names of their dioceses; and
thu Noble Lord might be assured, that whatever Par-
lia raent might do, the Irish people would still uphold
th sir bishops, obey their counsels, and reject everything
that might tend to impair their authority.
Illr. i.tIWLESS considered that every Member re-
Pre3oniing a Catholic constituency was bound to raise
hie voice against the present Bill, and he felt himself
the more bound to do so because ho was a Protestant re-
presenting a Catholic constituency. When the Noble
Lord now at the head of the Government succeeded to
office bonfires of rejoicing were lighted up throughout
Iceland, because the people rembered the opinions he
had expressed in opposition, and especially his declara-
'don that Ireland eves occupied, arid not governed.
There wore new, however, other bonfires in Ireland, and
In every one of them the Noble Lord was burnt in effigy.
(A laugh.) It might be, aid this was but a proof of the
fickleness of popularity and of the capriciousness ef the
'people. That he (Mr. Lawless) denied. It was the

Noble Lord who had been capricious, for he likd not
fulfilled his promises. The Nolte Lord had even- _the
Irish people Arms Acts and Coercion Acts; and he (31r•
Lawless) had the authority of Mr. Berwick, a revising
barrister in the south of Ireland, for stating that
fr the
Franchise Act passed for Ireland would, so far om
operating beneficially, be a disfranchising Act with
re-
gard to a large portion of that country. Then in the
terrible famine with which Ireland had been visited,
and which was met by the people with a Pa•
deuce which did them credit and honour. the
Government had not taken those measures which
they were bound to take, and he contended that
they were responsible for every life lost by that fa-
mine. And now, to crown all, the Noble Lord proposed
a penal law directed against the Irish Catholic clergy,
who had behaved in the most exemplary manner during
the famine, for he could say, from his own p nee,
Xe ie
that bat for their exertions there would have been blood-
shed from the north to the south of Ireland. He regret
that in the course of this debate the Hon. Member for
which—although be (Mr. Lawless)
language
Surrey (Mr. Henry Drummond) had used
had excited in his mind a feeling of horror and disgust.
The Speaker had ruled that the Hon. Gentleman was in
in order in using such language, but he (Mr. Litwles
could only say that in no other Assembly in the world
_
would any one have been allowed to use such a string of
obscene words. A meeting had been held on the aubjec
was a Protestant
of that language at Kingstown, and resolutions bad
eebefall
adopted expressing surprise that no notice had bn tak!t.
in that House of the disgraceful language used within i
He believed there was not a single Member of that Ilouse,
that,
language as most shameful, and he was sorry
whether Catholic or Protestant, who did not regard that
to see
in the resolutions of the meeting to which be had referrefad
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government Vi
y
coupled with the Hon. Member for west theSurre.
This he supposed had arisen from some mistake; for
Noble Lord had never used such language as that 1
Indeed,ss
dulged in by the Hon. Member for Surrey.
the only fault he had to find with the Noble Lord w,
that he had not sufficiently condemned the language of
that Hon. Al, tuber. Nothing but his advanced age_r(o
we understood) prevented that Hen. G•entleman fue !I!
being severely dealt with, and he (Mr. H. Drtlernmlll.
ht,
had bettor not trust himself in Ireland, or h .
at had
perhaps, meet with the same sort of treatment tn t
one MOS-
He could assure the House that if there was 5 been experienced by General Haynau in this country.
sure which was more calculated than another to rang:
the indignant feelings of the people of Ireland, whateverwag
on
for extending thin Bill to Ireland, where no aggro
esssuich
insult to their clergy. There was no excuse
had been committed, and where no pretext for any
brought forward this Bill was worthy of the most tti
Pious
legislation existed. The way in which the Noble Lord
fogging attorney. The Noble Lord wrote his notoort.
e_
letter, containing allusion to " mummeries," their Car
language which gave very just offence to their
usingy
such language, alone fellow subjects; and then, in excuse for
wag
directed, not against Roman Catholics, but s
Puseyites. Why, then, was Parliament called upoeiii_te
legislate against Catholics, and not against Puseyiet j.
the Noble Lord said that it
against
(Cheers.) He was glad to say that many of th Pro
n,...
testant clergy regretted the system of legislation
country
attempted against the Roman Catholics of this
"uletteYr
Mr. Lawless then read some passages from
s „at
written by a Protestant clergyman to a Mem
House, expressing the opinion that it was not th pef.
vines of the Queen to ceder spiritual rights.
which
writer observed that because the temporal barony w'_.,
the Queen added to the spiritual dice was
gaping
seen seen and regarded, the mistake had been made of
the names " bishop" and " archbishop" " titles," ros:
they really were only ecclesiastical designations picro'pea
sons who sustained a spiritual cffice in au tePeiSnarno
bete. r ,
church, just as the name " ministers"
given to persons who held a spiritual officewians
or Presbyterian churches. The writer therefor?
re-
in
ferred that there was no ground for any eneasureel: as-
gard to what had been improperly termed " t view
sumption of ecclesiastical titles." Such was the a,
taken by a Protestant clergyman; would to ', goodtgbao
he was a bishop !—(A laugh.) The argument of with
Solicitor-General, compar' t relations e-
Rome to those of Roman Catholic times
ing our presen e.,
_lad,
was absurd ; in Catholic countries bishops werre-
appointed by the Pope without the consent of the e.
reign, but now we did not acknowledge the PP;O
With regard to the public feeling upon the subject, tt of
papers, particularly the Times, had made the mos.
~0
the question, and done all they could to excite PM3.1,1e
spirit; in that day's Times there were five letters rid";
regard to Miss Talbot's case—(" Hear, hear," 5n 'se
laugh)—he regarded this as showing the sort of false
impetus given to the subject in order to back UP t ~
Noble Lord in passing this measure.—(" hear, hear
"Oh !") It was painful to him (Mr. Lawless) to con:
chure°
tract the language used by bishops of his own
with the temperate address of the Roman Catholinf
Bishops of Ireland to their flocks upon the subject °t,
this measure. (The Hon. Member read several extrac
from this address.) Surely
the proceeding now in clue 0
Lion had arisen as much from ignorance as from a wish t
offend. It was not impossible that the Pope, especially
in his present weak state, should wilds to inaelt and 0-
asperate a country like this. What had occurred we.
very much to be attributed to the shameful state of things'
as between the Pope and her Majesty, with regard.
°
temporal subjects. With 7,000,000 of Roman Catholeg
in Ireland, there should be a proper understanding is
the head of their church. This could not have arlete-s
in—lbenthisediin9t.;
if there had been a concordat with Rome. Bat viz'!"
had we? Why, a titled spy; for the Noble Lord 'IPA°
went to Rome was without any proper credentials, g`:
was desired to make out the most he could of matters n'
Rome. Then followed a misunderstanding as to what
passed with the Pope; and some stated that what then
passed in regard to tis measure had very much eecou."
With regard to the scandal which had occurred in
raged the Pope in this " aggression."—(Hear, bear.)
called, he (Mr. Lawless) begged to Ire)land, in respect to " the godless colleges," as they we!!
before him endowed four or five of the adonal
vthat he
father
best best to further the national system there,sa and his father
—(Hear, hear)—he was very sorry that from some mit;
understanding between the Government and the heads et
the Catholic Church—it could be nothing more—these
colleges were not likely at present to be of the use lig,
had hoped they would be.—(Hear, hear.) He proceedea
then then to refer to the • ' ' • by Mr 0115••
oinions en . , g
gar and by " Messrs. Bethel! and C0.,"0 and stated tna
Noble
he believed the Bill went further . than the
Lord (Lord John nussell) wished or intended, thought
school,
Heaven knew, he intended bad enough to the Cath?'
lics.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Member adverted ow
s
the case of Miss Talbot, expressing (as we ander,'
'
to
stood) his belief that she had had her own
London,
wll
and that she had always intended to come up to
laugh.]
[A MEMBER—" For the Exhibition?"—A
Yes, but a pretty exhibition there had been.licity.
Elear.
hear.) She would be the only sufferer by the pub
She had:his sympathy.—(Hear, hear.) With reiPeet t°ci
the course taken en the part of the Government, he ST
he could not believe the Noble Lord meant what he
wrote in his letter; he had too high a respect for him--
for his intellect.—(A laugh.) The Noble Lord took ad-e
ge
vantage of a cry, thinking he could strengthen hear,)
i;
in a position in which he felt sbaking.—(Hear, he
Not having gone far enough to please the " Protestao
ascendancy boys"—(A laugh)—and having deserted the
real ‘• religious liberty men," and those who were fat:
total freedom of conscience—(Hear, hear)—he wain
find that " between the two stools he was falling to the
ground"—(Leughter)—and would probably be over-
whelmed in the ruins of his own agitation.
Mr. MUNTZ thought it was a thousand pities our Govern'
ment connived at, or did not protest against, the occupation
of Rome by the French; but for that the Pope would have
had something else to do than disturb the peace of this
ceuntry.—( Hear, hear.) This discussion had often turned
man Catholic religion and the Protestant,
aside, as he thought, from the real question. He did not
supportß this Bill on the ground of the question between the
best religion. Each had a right to his o icn religion, and
each might think the other's it old story
ridiculous; was the
—" Orthodoxy is m d r man's
y oxy, and heterodoxy is another
-onus.„—(A • " (A -
'Y. laugh.) The real question was, had the Pepe
committed an aggression against the Sovereign and the
which was the
people of this realm ?—(Loud cries of " Hear.") Now it eat
extraordinary that almost every speaker had acknowledgel
that
this was a great aggression—(Hear, hear)—,Jen 411
dent and arrogant aggression—S." Hear, hear," and" ''`''' a )pope-
those speakers who were not under the influence of the _
—Wear, hear.) Jed that rt
in his very The Right lion. Baronet (Sir
able and clever speech acknowledg
11 r hear.)
was an aggression, and an offensive one. (--ea-, ,
Then, ,if so, upon what principle was Protestant England to
sit down and submit to an aggression from the Pope?—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Were we come to such a
miserable condition that we must submit to an aggression
from any quarter whatever, wi,hout meeting it? - (Cheers.)
On the introduction of this Bill he (Mr. Muntz) assigned a
Graham
reason why he voted for its introduction, viz., that he
b Ca
never been able to discover that any country svhe
tholic religion had been supreme had enjoyed libert or
y
prosperity.---(Hear, hear.) He bad listened attentived
one
ne
to
this debate, and had not heard -ny instance given; an
of his objects in rising was to ask if some gentleman could
enlighten him upon that point. - (Hear, hear.) Till then,
however, he must act upon his own judgraeat.—
hear.) The practical question, as the matter regarded the
prosperity and welfare of the country, was to be considered;
and, not having the slightest wish to persecute or injure any
man because he professed a different religion from his ceses,he
which
(Mr. Muntz) was not going to encourage a religion
was not found consistent with the prosperity or the inter ests
of any country where it prevailed.—(Hear, hear-) He
did not admit the necessity of the appointment of these
(Hear,
Ca-
bishops; ; he was informed that every advantagelic,
of the Ca-
tholic religion was obtained under vicars-apostolic, and that
being so, why was he to consent to appointments leading to
so much dissatisfaction and unpleasant feeling between diffe-
rent sects?—(Hear, hear.) With oise very small exception
there was no state in Europe where bishops were allowed to
be appointed by the Pope without and to
of the Go-
vernment ; why was Protestant England to 1 e called upon to
do what no other nation Catholic or Protestant, would do?
—(Loud cries of " Hear, on, But it had been done lately
in Austria. Well, it was the interest of the Austrian Go-
vernment to keep their people in statee of subjection. Could
was handy born.— (Bear,
any one show an instance where ther was a constitutions'
Government maintained under the Catholic religion? [A
[A Mesaure—Twenty
hear.)
40Bwellgurilugmha]d Bitelegxiuismt, d ?
~ oh, don
~t fear the Pope; he is years. ] What was an existence, of twenty years? __ (Hear,
hear.) People said,
sur-
rounded by French bayonets.. That was a reason for
nhee ecru. say hew nearly the matter might
fearing bins. He had no opinion of his ONVl3.—LHeart
they could play;
could
wictohultdhe Emperor of Russia or of Austria ? -
(Hear, hear.) It was the best card thee'
power as they would have if they could
Popes influence.—(Hear, hear.) Be (de
very much struck with a spech Inauv
in this debate be an H
early , on. Baronet (sir R. Peel, we bee
lieve) —a manly, -English, independent, straightforwaeu
speech.--(Cheers.) There was in Switzerland a state—Fsi-
elinemeuvpieiltorzyh)aNtivlhasesucl,'hery
burg—where the Pope was allowed:to appoint bishops free ,
the control of Government. The bishop there encourage"
se-
the people to march against the Government, and gar
money out of his own pocket for the purpose. a odd bee
rested, and sent across the frontier to Rome.
received there as a martyr.—(Hear, hear.) , Was • Oat