The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-24 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY

their assent to the amendment. Ho had inceived a letter
that very day announcing the formation Jr a nerd Ca-
tholic league in Ireland. This was the fait ef their in-
terference with the religion of the people They forgot
that this had been the ca,e all over the world. It wes
this which bed separated Hellanel from ;elesium. How
different 4V2,3 the foaling in the United Stites! He must
beg leave to real a short paragraph iron. an American
newspaper, in illustration of tins. The paragraph said
—" We cordially rejoice. good Protestaits as we are, to
see a good man promoted to the highest dignity in his
Church." lie understood that that emitent man wes at
that moment in that House. The Noble Lord had talked
of a conspiracy against the liberties of Europe. Ile
asked the Noble Lord if he meant to intimate that the
Roman Catholics were implicated in that conspiracy ?
Had they not, on the contrary, been foremost, both in
that House and out of it, in supporting liberty in every
shape for the last fifty years? Had they not supported
the claims of the Dissenters? It he asserts that (con-
tinued the Hon. Bsronet), I tell him to his teeth in this
House, that it is a base falsehood.—(Loud cries of
" Order.") It has no foundation in truth.
The CHAIRMAN—The Hun. Barotet will, I am
sure, be sorry that he has used those *seds.
Sir W. BARRON—Sir, you did not hear my words.
I said, and I repeat it, that if the Noble Lord charges
the Roman Catholics in this House, or in this country,
with being engaged in a base conspiracy against the li-
berties of mankind, it is a base falsehood.—(Loud cheers
from the Irish Members). Those are the words I used,
and I repeat them. I say they have no foundation in
fact. I call on him for his proot; and I have a right to
ask for it.—(A laugh.) I took down the Noble Lord's
words, and I have them here. The Noble Lord, in
talking against the appointment of Roman Catholic
bishops in England by the Pope, used these remarkable
words:—" It was part of a conspiracy is prevent the ex-
tension of civil and religious liberty in Europe."—(Hear
hear.) Now, mind, it was the appointment of Roman
Catholic bishops in this country that was part of that
conspiracy. Does that or does it not connect theßoman
Catholics of this country with the conspiracy
against civil and religious liberty?—(No.) Then
I am wrong. But I say if there was no in-
tention so to connect them, the phrase was used
in a manner and under circumstances which conveyed
to my mind an imputation, and I repudiate it as I have
a right to do. There is a conspiracy, and it reminds me
very much of an ancient conspiracy remarkable in the
history of this country, the conspiracy of Titus Oates—
a conspiracy to put down the Roman Catholics, and
abolish their civil and religious rights.—(ol), ob.) The
language used in and out of this House confirms
me in that opinion. I could cite case after case of the
most disgraceful and discreditable imputations against
the Roman Catholic body—imputations unfounded in
fact, and which we repudiate, and have always repudiated,
butwhich will be trumped up and brought forward again
to rouse the passions and stimulate the exertions of a
oertain class of the community in this country to pass
Bills of this kind.—(Oh, oh.) I was so strongly reminded
of that conspiracy, after hearing the speech of the Noble
Lord, that I took the trouble to refer to the annals of
that period, and found this account given:—" The im-
posture, which was brought forward in a time of popular
commotion and supported by the arts and declamations
of a numerous party, goaded the passions of men to a
state of madness, and seemed for awhile to ex-
tinguish the native good sense and humanity of
England. The most absurd and incredible statements,
as they must appear to a thinking mind, were
received without hesitation, and even men of the highest
class suffered themselves to be agitated with the appre-
hension of dangers, the more alarming to the imagina-
tion because they were wrapped up in mystery." There
is a great similarity between the mode of getting up the
agitation in the two cases. In this case the Pope was to
invade us some fine morning, and all were to become
Roman Catholics in twenty-four hours. But I think
the test which my Noble Friend has put will be a test of
the honesty of the Government as to their interference
or non-interference with the spiritual functions of the
Roman Catholic clergy of this country.
The Committee divided. The numbers were—
For the amendment ... ••• ... 61
Against it 316
--255

Majority ...

The amendment was accordingly loft.
Mr. SADLIER contended that the Bill was con-
ceived in a spirit hostile to the course of policy entered
upon towards the Roman Catholics by the Bill of
1829. Ev:aa the Noble Lord himself had, on va-
rious occasions, advocated the spiritual freedom of
the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which the pro-
posed Bill would fetter to a most detrimental extent.
He challenged the Government to show that the Roman
Catholics of Ireland could have any other hierarchy
than that which they had had for centuries. The heads
of the Roman Church in that country performed their
functions as archbishops of particular provinces and
bishops of particular dioceses. There was no arch-
bishop or bishop who had not some archbishopric or
bishopric assigned to him. Now if that were the case,
he said that it would not be consistent with the spirit of
the age, or the general liberality of the people of this
country, that the exercise of the Roman Catholic reli-
gion should be fettered in the manner proposed in that
Bill. He should move an amendment in the clause, by
the addition after the word " thereby," of the words
" for temporal purposes."
Sir G. GREY said that, although the amendment of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman differed in terms from
that of his Noble Friend the Earl of Arundel and
Surrey, it was identical with it in meaning and effect;
and as the House had just negatived the amendment of
his Noble Friend, he thought he should only be guilty
of an unwarrantable waste of their time, by repeating,
in reply to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the argu-
ments which had been used against the preceding
amendment.

Mr. MONSELL said that in the county he had the
honour to represent the diocese of Emly was situated,
and in that diocese there were between 80,000 and
90,000 Roman Catholics, and about 1,200 Protestants.
The Roman Catholic bishop of that diocese did not,
however, claim any of those tithes or churches or funds
which the piety of his ancestors had devoted to the sup-
plying of the spiritual wants of his flock. Those emolu-
ments were left to the 1,200 Protestants in that diocese.
Now, he would ask the law officers of the Crown whether
it would not be in the power of any common informer
under that Bill to proceed against a Roman Ca►holic
bishop for discharging the duties of his station, because
he could only act under the authority of a bull which
the Parliament of this country had declared to be un-
lawful? Now ho would put it to her Majesty's Minis-
ters, whether it would be -wisp on their part to set the
people of Ireland and the laws of the land in opposition
to each other, or whether they did not feel aware that
they would by that means be laying the seeds of an agi-
tation which must produce the most disastrous effects
in these kingdoms?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he had only to
state in reply to the Hon. Gentleman what had already
been stated four or five times that evening by his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Attorney-General—namely, that
they were not then making a new law, but that they
were merely declaring what the law had 1;:en during the
last 200 years.
Mr. SCULLY said ho believed that the clause as it
then stood would make all future rescripts or bulls void,
and would, by that means, prevent all communication
with the See of Rome. But in that case no Roman
Catholic bishops could be consecrated, and no Roman
Catholic priests could bo ordained in these kingdoms for
the future. The clause would, in effect, repeal the
Emancipation and Charitable Beqiests Act. (The Hon.
Gentleman was met with cries of "Divide" at every
word.) He would not be put down by clamour, but he
would tell the House once more—(Cries of " Divide")—
that the question was not fairly discussed, and that another
course would be taken if the unfairness was persevered
in.—(Cries of " Divide.") The clause should be con-
fined to the temporal power of the Pope.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL suggested that the Government
should take the question into consideration, and carry
out their own statement, that they did not wish to in-
terfere with the spiritual acts of the Roman Catholics.
Mr. KEOGH said it was not unreasonable for her
majesty's Governrobeanti
atioreatadkyehasd it
some time
consider
care
underto
their
ALPOLE said that some forty minutes had
been wasted by Irish Members in arguing a case which
had no conne. aion with Ireland. It would be seen that
ituhresru. fourb
wjenact. nouTsh. ey.
England; and the law, as the Solicitor-General
re-
ferred to
had said, was
Ireland. It in the same state as before in respect
leftto
the law exactly as it was in September
the clause addressed itself to a particular brief which

1850.
Mr. SCULLY said if the Hon. Gentleman had heard
the Solicitor-General he would think the same as he did

of the clause.
Mr. SADLEIR had heard the Solicitor-General say
the clause applied to Ireland.
Mr. GLADSTONE bore testimony to the accuracy
of the statement that the exposition of the clause by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst was in dia-
metrical opposition to that of the Hon. and Learned
Solicitor-General two nights previously. Re (Mr.
Gladstone) had asked the Government why the bull
constituting the see of Ross was not included in the
clause, and the Solicitor=General had replied by saying
that the question was one which could only be put by a
man ignorant of the law, and by stating that the Act,
being a declaratory one, it applied to all bulls. The
Honourable and Leaned Member for Midhurst, how-
ever, said the close had no reference to Ireland.
His (Mr. Gladstone's) Honourable and Learned Fiend
was not, however, consistent with himself. for he not
only said that the clause did not apply to Ireland, but
that it loft the law as it stood on the 28th September,
1850. If so, neither did it apply to England. This was
a part of the confusion in respect of the Bill which had
commenced with the second reading, and which bad
gone on multiplying ever since. The real truth was this
—her Majesty's Government did not think it politic to
put into the Bill the bull respecting the bishopric of
Ross in so many words. They did not wish—and he
gave them credit for the feeling—to point to any case
affecting Ireland; but the more they proceeded with the
measure the greater was the difficulty in which they
placed themselves. Their declaratory Act was, there-
tore, perfectly unintelligible.—'(Gear, hear.) If it de-
clared tho law, why did it only refer to one bull? If it
only left the law as it was, why declare it all; and why
pass a declaratory Act without stating where the exist-
ing law was deficient? In truth there were no two
ideas consecutive and consistent in the entire Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) He would give them an answer as well
us he could. Ho maintained that there was no contra-
diction between both his Learned Friends, if they would
understand the sense in which the answers of both
were given. The Honourable and Learned Member for
Midhurst had told them that that clause was not
applied to Ireland. The Solicitor-General had informed
them that it was particularly directed against a certain
rescript which ,wae promulgated in England. It only
applied to Ireland in this sense, that being an Act of
the Imperial Legislature, it was of course applicable to