The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-16 00:00:00

vrwa, MAY lot lagl.
- -
•

f Mr. REYNOLDS•moved that the House at it rising
rtititnuithidjonrn'ultil Monday.-
The Sl-I.EAltilt intimated that the Hon. Member
could not make sich a motion after the order 01 the da
had beenil.—rllear) y
Mr. R )LiS— Then I move that this debate be
now adj d.
The Si-SAKE:I—The Hon. Member baring already
spoken he cannot move the adjournment of the debate.
—(Laughter and cheers.)
After the presentation of a considerable number of
petitions against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,
The House divded on the motion for going into Com-
mittee on the Bit, when there appeared—
For goioginto Committee ... ... 116
Against it ...
••• 35
illajoritr fir going into Committee —Bl
On re-entering the gallery we found that the House
had gone into Committee, with Mr. BERNAL in the
chair.
On the geestioi that the preamble be postponed,
Mr. KEOGH 7080 to move that the preamble should
be taken first, for he contended that at present the House
had not before it the Bill by which the Government
meant to stand ozr fall. He thought it would be more
desirable that the Bill should be printed in its new form,
in order that theconntry might ace what its nature was.
Lord JOHN lUSSELL said he could not accede to
the proposition tt the Hon. Gentleman, because it was
now some time 'ince the Bight Hon. Gentleman the
Szcrotary of State for the Home Department had stated
what alterations the Government meant to propose in the
Bill, and the House by this time was perfectly aware of
them.' With respect to the other alterations, the opinion
of her hhj, sty's Government would depend in a great
measure me wrist took p!ace in the course of the debate;
and as far as regarded the amendments of the Hon. and
Learned Member, he (the Noble Lord) certainly desired
the Attorney-General to kdmmunicale with the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman to ascertain what their nature
was, and to express the opinion of the Government upon
them, but the result of that had certainly not been
to come to any agreement on the subject of the amend-
ment.

Mr. DISRAELI said that the position of the House
with respect to fie amendments had csrtainly been very
much changed shoe the recent declaration by the Noble
Lord, that the rwcript of the Pope appointing Cardinal
Wiseman was part and percel of a great conspiracy
against the civil and religions liberties of the country.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that what he had
stated was that it was part of a conspiracy to prevent
the extension of civil and religious liberty in Europe,
and that it was dreaded that the influence of this coun-
try would be used to assist that extension.
Mr. DISRAELI said he was willing to accept the
Noble Lord's correction, and with that be would say
that it was the most important statement which had fallen
from a Prime Minister during the present century. The
question was then, whether the Bill now before them was
calculated to meet such a conspiracy.and he thought it was a
marked characteristics of the Bill that it did not meet
the grievance which was complained of. The first thing
which they should have done would have been to have
dealt with the arch-conspirsitor himself, it was the
duty of the Government to have secured his removal,
to have met the conspiracy in a manner which would
show that this country was determined to baffle it. But
instead of that, Government had adopted a course
quite the reverse. In the first place they had
called upon the House to legislate without
making the slightest reference to the causes
that demanded it, and that the form of legislation
therefore which they recommended assumed something
like, petty religiouspersecucion.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
if Parliament had supported the Minister in securing
the removal of the Popish Prince who was re-
ported to be at the head of the conspiracy against
civil and religious liberty, or :,if Minister bad hid
down a principle for its !f_gisiatiou, -which would have
brought under the censtitueienel control of the Sovereign
all those WILL assumed civil or ecclesiasticAl titles from
foreign princes, without having recourse to this
petty mode of legislating they would have vindicated the
honour of thereountry, briffisd the conspirators, anti laid
down a prif-ciple of legislation which would have pre-
vented a recurrence of the insult. He now came to thecon-
side ration of the various amendments before them wish
reference to these circumstances. These amendments
were considerable in number, but though considerable
in number, they combine themselves under two heads.
There were those that took the right course that sought
to connect their Legislation with the cause thug
had produced it, and which in the Government scheme
was studiously concealed, which recognise what had oc-
curred as a political evil, and which sought to apply a
political remedy. There were, on the other band, amend-
ment): of a very different kind, which attempted to make
that efficient legislation which was essentially ineffective,
which did not Seek to connect their legislation with the
cireunistances. that had occasioned it, which did not
seek to apply political remedy to a political evil,
but, on the contrary, following up what he thought to
be the erronie policy of the Government. Now ail
these aenendnients, which were open and independent,
and declared to,,Europe used the country the reason why
they were undertaking this legislation, end which would
make the Bill *diet it ready ought to be, a retaliatory
Ant, intended to prevent the recurrence of a gross in-
sult. Those anietidments which proposed to apply a poli-
tical remeny „to a political evil he should
support. Tee other amendments were sanctioned
by the Honouoarable Gentlemen who wished the
13111 to apply to England without extending to Ireland.
Now under no ci; tumstancea would he consent to apply
isgsslstion to Enishoscl without extending it to Ire:apd.
Tee question beloie them was, how, they could maintain
the suprernecy of the Sotefeign. That was the only real
question before thim, and to answer it by saying they
weuid assist the aiirtority of the Sovereign in one part
of the kingdom without sass/ding it to the other would
be a roost impolitic and injbriouit course to follow.
Now the second class or amendment partook vet.) much
of that character,. and therefore, iu coming into Com-
mittee on this Bill, he felt it to he his duty to support
any aineedinent, hoes whatever side of the Nouse license.
which coped with .the real question they were called
upon to legislate ,itigainst. He should support those
amendments whicii, as became a great nation, declared
the reasons why Oty took the step they were now
absent to con!..utninte. and he should support all
those amendments Winch would make the Bill a retalia-
tory act, so as to vio(livate the honour of the Crown,
bate the tenispiratolj,!hd assert and maintain the real
cause of civil and
;religious liberty.—(Hear, hear.)
Ha could not, fthwVer, reel it expedient to support
amenements, the only, object of which was to render
--efficient that which wittessentially inefficient. The scheme
of the Govarnment'was not only inefficient but
vexatious too, an. 4: calculated, he thought, to
produce general disguit and disaffection, and not at all
likely to vindicate the honour of the country, or to bat& the conspiracy which, lace. rding to the Announcement of
the blinist,r, was now threstenieg the civil and re-
ligious liberty of the latid.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that the Bill omitted
to declare the course of their legislation. He did
not think that the question could be explained
more clearly than in 'l,he words of the amendment
which was proposed '`by his Right Honourable
Friend (Sir George Grey ). The
better to adopt the words suggested by the Hun. Member for Midburst,
but ins end of placing theinin the preamble of the Bill
to incorporate them in a seini ate clanse. If the Bill
were passed, and any persqii op nly assumed titles in
contravention of the law ix would be the duty of the
Government to put the la:v-Imo operation.
Mr. KEOGH said it waft( not be fair to the House
or the country to insist cif` proceeding with the Bill
without the Government stating what sort of Bill they
se
intended to stand by. e
After a few observations from Lord J. RUSSELL
and Mr. SCULLY.
Mr. GRATTAN protegtedi;trongly against this insane
and trumpery species of leeilstion, and was proceeding
to inveigle with considerable acrimony against the Go-
vernment, when'he was interinked by cries of" Order."
He retorted by saying there was no order in his country,
and called upon Lord John Russell not to include Ire-
laud in tne operation of the BA' They were sending
off regiments to the Cape, biit'there_ was far more ne-
cessity to order them to Ireland-to protect Roman Ca-
tholics from the attacks of Orangemen.—(Laughter,)
Mr. WALPOLE explained the nature of the amend-
ments which lie intended to propose, and denied that they
would have the effect cf interfering with the spiritual
fuec'ions of the Roman Catholic clergy.—(Hear, hear.)
He was vita ready to accede to the suggestion of the
Noble Ural at the head of the Government.
(LEFT SITTING.)

gtoged in tuitiony-and a voice- in the Selection of all
books of oducstion. On no other condition will they
consent to carry out the stipulation of the law on
public instruction.—Anzieger Zeitung.

D MENA M, MAY 13.—We observe that a few hien&
of Mr. George Waters, at Lowestoft, have presented him with
a very handsome testimoniil of their estimation of his acts
while statione'l amongst them. It is a very nice silver snuff-
box, beautifully execute], and bears the following inscription
on the lid : —si Presented to Mr. George Waters by a few
friends of Lowestoft, as a mark of their regard and esteem,
May Ist, 18.51."
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 15.
PETITIONS.
A number of petitions were presented in favour of the
Ecclesiastical Titles; Bill; also others praying that it
might be rendered more stringent.
Mr. BAILLIE presented a petition from Inverness
against Lord Melgund's Elucation Bill.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
On the motion of Mr. HUME, returns:were ordered of
the number of persons committed fur contempt of the
Court of Chancery, from the month of April, 1827, to
the present time, with a specification of the orders under
which the commitments were made; of the number of
prisoners in contempt who have been discharged since the
year 1827, under orders obtained by the solicitor acting
for paupers in contempt, the Costs of obtaining the order
in each case, and the name of the solicitor acting for the
pauper; and, of the number of prisoners in contempt
discharged under the Act 1 Will. IV., c. 36, by the
governor or keeper of any prison, without an order of
the court; and the term of imprisonment in each case.
MR. HUME'S MO PION.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE..apologised for his absence in
the House at four o'clock on Tuesday, saying he thought
he should have been in plenty of time at half-past four,
and gave notice that, as Mr. Hume had fixed his motion
for the 3d of June, he Should on that day move an
amendment to it, to the effect that the House would at
the earliest opportunity next session take into its serious
consideration the representation of the people with a
view to the extension of the elective franchise.
WINDOW TAX.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then asked the Noble Lord
when it was his intention to proCeed with the second
reading of the Window Duties.. Bill? He understood
that there was no apposition to be offered to the second
reading. It was hoped that the pleasure would have
been proceeded with before the income-tax.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member for
Finsbury must be aware that there had been certain
notices of motion given for the remission of taxes. It
was, therefore, a matter of consideration with the Go-
vertiment wnether they would press forward the Win-
dow Duty Bill bsfore such notices had been disposed of.
Mr. 'l'. DUNCOMBE asked the Noble Lord whether
there was not a distinct understanding that the window-
tax was to be repealed?
Lord J. RUSSELL had stated distinctly a week or
ten days ago that the Government were most anxious to
proceed with the Window Tax Bill ; but that their in-
tentions respecting it must depend upon the decision
of the House in reference to other matters.
BOARD OF HEALTH.
Mr. HUTCHINS asked the Noble Lord the Member
for Bah (Lord Ashley) whether it was the custom of
the Board of Health to appoint as their engineers those
gentlemen who go into the country for the purpose of
reporting upon the propriety or otherwise of extending
their operations to particular towns or districts?
Lord ASHLEY said he was not aware that it was
the custom for the Commissioners to do any such thing.
CONFERENCES.
Mr. LABOUCHERE reported that the Lords desired
a conference with that Honse upon the subject of con-
rareness generally, and appointed the same to take place
immediately.
The following gentlemen were then appointed to con-
duct the conference on the part of the Commons, and
left the House for that purpose:—Sir J. Graham, Mr.
C. Lewis, Mr. Bsrnal, Mr. Disraeli, the Attorney and
Solicitor-General, Sir J. Young. Mr. Card well, Mr.
Herries, Mr. Christopher, Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Heyter,
Colonel Dunne, and Mr. Labouchere.
Upon their return
Mr. LABOUCHERE informed the House that the
managers on the part of the Commons had agreed to the
resolutions proposed by the managers on the part of the
Lords, and they had submitted a resolution to the House
of Lordsr desiring their concurrence to the same, which
resolutions they had left with their Lordships.
A messenger from the Lords soon afterwards ap-
peared at the table to request another conference with
the Commons.
The Hon. Members appointed to conduct same imme-
diately left the House for that purpose.
On Cher return,
Mr. LABOUCHERE informed the House that the
House of Lords had agreed to the resolution of the
Commons which was communicated to their Lordships
that day.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
Mr. KEOGH asked the Hon. Member for Midhurst
(Mr. Walpole) whether the rumour which had prevailed
that some understanding or arrangement existed between
him and the Government with reference to the amend-
ment of which he had given notice respecting the &cle-
siastical Titles Bill was true, and if so, whether his views
were in consequence likely to be altered?—(Cries of
" Hear," and " No.")
Mr. WALPOLE rose for the purpose of giving a
reply, hut in deterence to a generA cry of "Nu, no," he
resumed his seat without saying a word.
Mr. REYNOLDS theteput a similar question to Lord
John Resseil.
isord .1. RUSSELL said-the proper time to ask such
a qaestion w. uld be e hen the House went into a Com-
untiee on the 13111,—(Cheers.)
Mr. REYNOLDS present.!d petitions from the Ca-
tholic iut,abitauts of the folloNing pla;•es against the
Ect.lesissqual 'fides Bill, and the Religious Houses
Bill :—Bally more Eustace; Culfeightine, Antrim; Kir-
!emeriti. comity of Cavan; Drlmcree, Armagh; prim-
crilly, Leitrim; Donegal, Donegal; Ballinascreen, Lon-
donderry; Hollsywood, Wicklow; Crosserlaugh, Cavan;
All Saints, Donegal ; Angleton, Lancaster ; Leagon.
Armaeh ; Billytieo.a., Sligo; Clonelane, Leitrim;
Ge..g:tr and liaihdowey; Queen's County ; Donagh,
Monaghan ; Doorane and Mayo, Queen's Comity t
Brecon, Brsektieekshire ; Kamcron, Antriz_i Blessing-
ton, Wicklow; Naran, Meath; Duicroff, Kildare.
The reading of the prayers of this number of peti-
tions by the Hon. Gentleman occupied nearly twenty
minutes.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY presented several petitions againsl
the Bill from various parts of Ireland ; as did also Mr.
Greene, Mr. Keogh, Mr. Magan, and Mr. John O'Con•
nell

-merely tie missionaries in the country. It was then
said that the introduction of a hierarchy into this
country would be sccompanied by the introduction of
the canon law, and that is was necessary to protect
Roman Catholics from the tyrannical exercise of the
powers of thet law, es shown, for instance, in CABO9 of
excommunication. Were human Catholic ecclesiastics
the only ones who excommunicate d? Why refer to the
excominunications in Sardinia—the circumstances of
which, by the way, he might obsei ve, had been greetly
eiteggeratee? Why go to foreign countries tor in-
stances when they had some nearer home—the excom-
munications which had beeneeferrkl to as baying .been
exercised by a Protettant bishop in Scotland? They
need not fear any tyranny at this time of day from the
undue use of the power of excommunication, especially
in this country; for the parties who should be affscted by
excommunications had their remedy in the law of the
land, and a recent case in point had occurred in Ireland,
where a layman who had been excommunicated by his
parish priest brought the matter before a court of law
and obtained damages against the priest. Another rea-
son for opposing the motion was to be found in
the amendments of which notice had been given,
and which, if carried in Committee, would
tend still more than the Bill in its present form
to drive,
H the people of Ireland to acts of civil vio-
lence. e advised the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government to withdraw his Bill, and leave the sub-
ject in the hands of those Hon. 3lembers who had put
these notices on the paper. The Noble Lord refused to
tell the /louse what course he would take with respect
to the amendments until they got into Committee But
he told the Noble Lord that it was his duty to declare
his intentions on a matter of so much importance before
the Speaker left the chair. The conduct of Irish Mem-
bers with reference to this Bill had been impugned, hut
what was the course pursued by the Whigs in 1846 with
respect to Sir R. Peel's Coercion Bill? They first sup-
ported it, and then, Seeintibit a7prospect presented itself
if displacing him from power, they turned round and
violently opposed it. This measure would raise a cry in
Ireland which would never be subdued until some mea-
sures were introduced really beneficial to that country;
and be believed that a pledge would be exacted from
candidates to oppose all measures oppressive to the Ro-
man Catholics, and to spare no efforts to put an end to
the maintenance of a Church with immense revenues to
minister to the religious wants of a small minority. He
amain advised the Government to withdraw this Bill, and
introduce measures of real utility. The Noble Lerd was
much mistaken it he supposed that he could suepress the
Catholic feeling of Ireland, which was only beginning
to manifsst itself. This Bill was looked on as the in-
troducion of the small end of the wedge, which must
necessarily be the precursor of ulterior measures.
Mr. WEGG-PROSSER said her Majesty's Roman
Catholic subjacts asked for religious freedom, not be-
cause they were Roman Catholics, but because they
were Enghshmen. Was it right to contuse the instance
of England with the case of other countries which had
never enjoyed the great blessingi of religious liberty?
The (petition was, whether Ireland was or was not to
he included, and it was said that to include it would not
fail to stir up a spirit of disaffection in that country.
To this, the reply of the Government was, that it was a
question of the Queen's prerogative, which extended to
both countries. What was the conclusion to be drawn
from these conflicting arguments ? Why, that the
Queen's prerogative was not concerned in the matter,
and that it was a mistake and a fallacy to
.put it upon
that ground. The test argument was, that it was neces-
sary to prevent the establishment of the canon law,
which, under certain circumstances, was supposed to
clash with the common law of the land. He was not
enough of a lawyer to say exactly how that might be,
but he very much doubted the accuracy of the position.
Be that as it might, those who professed the R man
Catholic religion must take the consequences of it,
whatever they might be, and it was absurd
to step in for the purpese of defending them from
injuries to which they themselves d- clared they
could never be exposed. Very unfair arguments
had been urged on this point, based upon quotations
of obsolete enactments, for the purpose of proving that
danger exist.. d from the exercise of the Pope's temporal
power. This might have been a valid argument in the
middle ages, but the usages of those times hey° passed
away, and there was no one who believed that they
would ever be revived; nor was the argument brought
forward except for political or party purposes. It the
Pope had intended to form political combinations dan-
gerous to England, he had taken the very worst method
of carrying out his object. A more plausible argument,
perhaps, was, that it was an invasion of the Queen's
prerogative, because he had divided the kingdom into
territorial districts, and conferred titles of honour. With
regard to the first ground, he would observe, that if a
bishop were to exercise any authority, it must be within
certain districts. With regard to the second, he might
remark that the word title was used in an equivocal
sense. It might be a title of rank—(Hear)—or it might
be a description of the capacity in which a an acted,
and that was its meaning in this case.—(Hear, hear.)
Another point which bad had great influence on some
minds was the supposed insults which had been offered
to the British nation. He could not help thinking that
there was a great deal of national vanity mixed up
with this cry.—(Hear, hear.) Ile did not think
the House of Commons could deity that epis-
copacy was of divine origin, or that it was improper for
the State to interfere with religious matters. There was
no danger now with reference to the Roman Catholic
religion; there might have been danger at one time, but
that time had passed. Bocause there had been a great
outcry in the country, and because the country had been
lashed into fury, the House of Commons conceived they
were bound to do something, but they did nut know pre-
cisely what. Now this was quite wring, for it was the
duty of the House of Commons to moderate public ex-
citement, not to pander to it. Woud not every one
who refloned on the proceedings in Eeglend during the
last six months feel ashamed of what had been done? It'
every one did not feel ashamed, then he should feel
atoawed of his country. He was scandal) ed when
walking the streets of the metrop.lis to sue the symbol
of their cowmen religion—the cross, made a mockery of.
He should give his strutious opposition to the Bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL would remark that Irish gentlemen
appeared to have committed an inaccuracy as to the ob-
ject they should pursue and the cause with which they
were entrusted, in resisting the metiou 'for the Speaker
leaving the choir. lie would remind Irish Members that
the success of resistance must depend on the talent and
energy with which it was conduc.ed.
Mr. TRELAWXY would implore her Majesty's Go-
vernment not to allow themselves to go Ott with this
Bill. He was desirous of supporting Government, but
in this instance they had got into a wrong groove, and
therefore be could not support thee. If the Bill were
successful, it would be a persecuting Bill; if it were
simply a name-calling Bill, then it would be abusive;
and in either case it could not have his support. He
could not Eve any harm in giving the Roman Catholic
bishops these titles. Where was the consistency of Go-
vernment in supporting the Bequests Act, the grant to
Maynooth, and the Education Bill, and objecting to these
titles?—(Hear.) The canon law might be oppressive;
but it it were so, it was a matter that concerned Ca-
tholics and net Protestants; te, then, the Catholics fight
the matter out with their superiors. He considered
that a law like the present, instead of checking the
progress of the Roman Catholic religion, would tend
very much to strengthen its position and spread its doc-
trine..

In the outset, he might be permitted is say 00.
as universal as the feeliog of indignation s'
proceedings of Rome was the feeling of regret O.
circumstances should have occurred to render t!.
sent measure necessary.—(Cries of •' Hear, °
Since 1829 he believed there bud been ire this co'
end especially among the Protestant part of the c::
nice, a eiccere, fieriest, and growing desire that rtl.
differences should roiegle as little as possible w!ii
gious diecuseionse—(Hear, hear.) The removal
abilities, whether from Catholic or from Protests & I
senters; had induced a more friendly interceptere
persons of all religious denominations, and thatin
intercourse had naturally led to greater libershr
opinion on all aides.—(Hear.) So far from their
any desire in the people of this country to revir,:t
flame of religious intolerance, or to ransack ancient
tutes for forgotten penalties against Roman Uslu
e
and other Dissenters. he believed the very reverse
the fact; and the moral which he drew from the es
sinus of opinion which had taken place was, thatu_
but a sense of overwhelming necessity could ever,
prompted them.— toe
ver It was not difficult t,
ver the real cause of the whole agitation. Several
"
Gentlemen who had taken a part in the debate
spoken as if the brand of discord which had been P
_of
among the people had come from' the bands of
Government—Mear, hear.) He should aceePrlf_e•
the real test of the question at issue. Considelni;s
the measure said to ce so intolerant had ca feune
hands of a party who had fought the battle of Wellets
in the worst of times—who from 1829 bad he
strongest and firmest supporters of the Prinal
toleration, but who, in identifying themselves wittof•
principle, had notescaped the sneers and taufb:o4ol
Opponents of Roman Catholic concession, be i'e
was perfectly plain that nothing could hare prom
pi
them to introduce such a measure unless it Was a DO
and overwhelming necessity.—(Hear, bean) of
hnm ale opirlieto the Papal rescript, was the 051151
the division of opinion that had
arisen, and Wasolhe
ciera reason why, at least, some measure
mad
troduced, not so much for any encroachment it °I woos
the supremacy of the Queen, although that aloes of
have justified the measure, nor for the political en
sifts
of the Church of Rome, but for that which leY,
root of both these points—the assertion on the
of the rescript. in language not to be mistaken
Ind
spiritual domination anti supremacy-, not over of
Catholics only, but ever the whole population mai
couutry.—(Elear, hear.) If the Roman C°Pa aieS
this country, or if the Pope in concert
with had coma to the Government like dissenter's sad. ie
tolerated bodies, and with that courtesy and inigite
(Hear, hear)—and with that respect which ong"ef
ishown,towards the Government and institutions abet
countty in which they lived, and had intinnaew
desire to re-organise their hierarchy on the footing
adapted to ecclesiastical government, he did not l'eof da
that the Government—he was sure that the peopled ad
country, attached as they were to toleration--","elteii
have been inclined to inquire particularly into tm bele)
by which they might wish to affect it.—(Hest, bed
He did not say that what had been done could ke-
dove under any circumstances • all he meant to Km 0
that if the Roman Catholics had' mania sted dematuaill
re-organise their ecclesiastical hierarchy in ccp";13000
with the laws and constitution of the land, tkele-tta."
now have had a totally different question to deal;„
the
(Hear.) But he could find nothing of that kind ;ask '
rescript. So far from speaking the language of ° elni
ing for toleration, it read like the language of onete"
had the will, though not the power, to be inteier
(Hear.) The titles given were but the reflection° tes
assertion of ecclesiastical supremacy put forth
_IWO
rescript.—(Hear.) It had been said that no claim 'rote
made for temporal supremacy. It appeared to 11101.0110
before admitting the claim to spiritual supremacy logbt
sense in which it was set out in the rescript, 11444
to recollect that the Pope's claim to temporal suPrses,
—even when his domination was at its height, been
based on his spiritual supremacy.—(Hear.) It hem, Os
said that the Pope's rescript was necessary, bean-tail,
Roman Catholic hierarchy was incomplete wit'a tr and the Ilan. and Learned Member for Athlone l',be
ferred the House to various bodies of dissenters, /I",iick
asserted, had the power of doing the very thing re
.man Catholic biehe pa and the Pope were .Dfat;loo
hibited doing. But there was a great difference /job
the acts of voluntary associations within the kir,„teiell
and the acts done by persons at the court of a '`,fir
potentate.—(Hear.) Besides, no dissenting bode', 7,40,
as he knew, had ever done, or bad ever attempted
of
what the Pope bad done. Neither. the Wesleysilweept
the Free Church of Scotland claimed any power esoe
over those who belonged to their own persuasion. d $l.
Scottish Episcopal Church had been referred to, 040
lusiou had been made to Bishop Skinner, of Abel'r
wet), it seemed, had excommunicated one of his cleri
trii men for an ecclesiastical off ace. That esseasr,
very illustrative of the argument he was now W
01
taining. The Bishop had published a sentenc°oo
excommunication, which the clergyman did tof
choose to submit to, and conceiving that the 0,0
had no right to publish such a sentence, the clerirsof
brought his action in the courts of Scotland. The Doh
came into court and described himself as Dr. Skin of
exercising episcopal functions within the district 0
Aberdeen. The question arose whether Dr. tilEinbd
was privileged to exercise such authority as. 13:04
exercised. As far as the case went, the Court °l
that there was no privilege in the case, and the case;ra
terminated by a compromise. That case; theree),lo
was the worst illustration which could be given of 'lO
power of the Scottish Episcopal Church to assume•
ji
or to exercise power.—(Hear, hear) He denied the
'
was an essential element of toleration to grant to V:,
lerated body all the privileges wnich it might thinkta
ceasary for the perfection of its system. A single tit tration would suffice. It might be essential that til clergy should be profeeed in the exercise et' their di
cipline, and yet the exercise of that discipline might •
inconsistent with miler bilVi of the land. No doue`d•
clergy lean of the Established Church could do
anything which the law allots ed, but it if
not follow that those olergy men who were o°o
tolerated, cud who were not in the same peeitif
as regarded the law, - could do the same thinet4
He (the Lord Advocate) spoke as a dissenter biolly
and not as a member of the Church of Eng #lO
land.
should be sorry to think that it was any attribute of for'
ward of toleration that any person should come Jafbi
ward and claim a right to predominate as a spiri u
ruler over the consciences of the people of this counwir
That, indeed, would, in his opiuion, be the deadliest blO
that toleration could receive. He (the Lord Advocel•
denied that Honourable Gentlemen on the other 61
were the advocates of toleration ; and he was Perfect 4
satisfied that the measure under discussion did not treyas
in the slightest degree on the principle of toleration'
He (the Lord Advocate) had said nothing of the Dir°;
peon view of the matter, though that was insisted
on , f
many as of much importance. It had been thought tul
the Act of the Pope was derived from a source ni"
wider than the apparent soun ,d; but es there had- been ;
public assertion made in the most unequivocal language
that the Pope had a right to jurisdiction over the land,
l
it could not be pasted without notice. It might be e
that this assumption should be despised; but
seeing the
:,
effect the question bad in Europe this count'',
could not afford to despise
it.—(Hear hear.) It 0
quite plain to him—and the people of this country
n°
, 11,
was satisfi, d felt in the same way—that if it were true
this was only a tentative measure, to be followed up bi
others of a similar nature, the
overnment could 13°''b
afford to treat it with contempt, without givinrencow
regement to other Acts, the direct tendency of which
would be to promote religious intolerance as well as
civil discord. He believed that it was true policy 10
atop it at once.—(Hear.) On the other hand, he though'
that the Government could not afford to despise it, be"
Muse the people of England were as strong in their Pro'
testantism at this day as they were in the year'l6so; and
that if the measure before the House had not been intro'
duced, when an insult had been offered to their faitk,
nothing would have suffered so much, in his opinion, 0
the beefed principle of toleration, which might have beet;
swept away in the high tide of public indignation.-'
(Hear, hear.) As regarded the measure, what wog
wanted was a strong expression of feeling on the
subject. No party in the country had a better right
to complain of the act of the Pope than the true-hearted
and loyal Catholics of this country. The measure before
the House went the least of all others that could peeve
be devised to excite bad feelings, while at the same
time it was all-sufficient for its object. Toleration h°7
been talked of. Was the measure an i f • infringement
the principle of toleration? If it was not, ringem
of
the principle? Was the Act of 1829
assumption an infringemen::4
this measure be called an
which only met an.notPla
then how could
infringement of that pri
over the people cif of spiritual authority
a district on the part of the pope._,
(Heir, hear.) tie
stem'
i. not know enough of the sy
of ihe'hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to ape,
positively; he was, .
impossible
however, told- it
tit toe Aercise its practice unless it teowleatsitliemsptorosm onal district,, iii this
t But had the Roman Catholic bishops
country exercised their functions for the last PI
centuries, or had they riot? And if they have, had the,
taken in that period territorial titles from the districts
in which they ininistered?—(Hear, hear.) He asked for
information on the subj,ca In the Scottish Episcopal
Church, which conformed as closely as possible to the
original system, ordination and the administration of
the sacrament had tuken place for the same period.
though it was not until within the last few years
that the bishops hai assumed territorial titles and ecole"
siastical dignity. The passing of the Bill would note
therefore, interfere with the functions of the Roman
Catholic bishops. Representations had b- en made to
the effect that the people of Scotland cared
very
little for the question at issue. The reverse, how"
ever, was the case.—(Hear, hear.) It was true that
they had a great fear of Popery in the north, and he
thought, therefore, that it was not derogatory to the
dignity of his felow-countrymen that these demonstra"
times were not greater; but those who thought the
temper of the country was changed were grievously vile'
taken when they imagined that the old spirit of Scot'
land was abated in that respect in the slightest degree,
or that because the people had become more tolerant,
they were one whit less strong in their faith,--(Heare),
Mr. REYNOLDS was rejoiced to hear the legal
voice of Sc eland in the debae, though it was certainly
feeble arid moderate; the legal voice of England bad
been heard trim the mouths of the Attorney and Soli-
citor-General; the first lave officer of the Crown tot
Ireland was, however, silent.—(Laughter.) He (Mr.
Reynolds) wanted to hear that Eon. and Learned (10,T
tlernadescribe
n feeling of
the law and
firean d
.
laugh.) The Hon. and Learned Lord Advccate bad
talked of toleration.—(Laughter What was tolere-
tion?—(Laughter.) Did the Ron.. Gentleinan mean that
ten millions of her Majesty's subjects who believed the faith of their ancestors, were only to be tolerated?
It was an offensive, an infamous phrase. The Right Hon.
Gentletean said the Catholics
should have conducted
themselves With humility. Ile (Mr. Reynolds) did not
understand the application of that phrase.—(Laughter
and Rear.) lie (Mr. Reynolds) did not entertain anY
feeling of huaality.—(Laughta tend Hear.) Oa th•