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

"spiritual" matter? He (Mr. Muntz) called it ex-
ceedingly temporal.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He
could give the hame of a gentleman who had personal
knowledge of the tranoiction. The question before the
, Rouse was not one of civil and religious liberty. This
country had been subjected to a great and impudent ag-
, greeidon, which was the foundation of a premeditated and
insolent attack on the Protestantism of Europe.—(Hear.)
What a feather would it be in the cap of the Pope were he
able to say of the people of this country, " See how I have
subjected them Have I not made bishops for !England?
Rave I not superseded their very church ?" He would
• do his beat to support the independence of the Pro-
testant religion, believing it for the interest of the
, country that the Protestant religion should be maintained.
Re never would have it said by his children that he had gone
out of the way to encourage the influence and increase of a
• religion which, in his opinion, did not conduce to the inte-
rests or the prosperity of the country.
Mr. SCULLY thought the speech of the Hon. Member for
4inningbam would have answered very well before the
plaxing of the Emancipation Act, for it was directed against
• the Catholic religion. How the so-called aggression affected
• the pockets or persons of any one in this country, he could
• ,'not understand. The receipt only gave to England what had
existed in Ireland for 14 centuries. As a friend of religious
liberty he opposed the Bill. Members of caper persuasions
than the Roman Catholic had denied that any aggression had
been committed ; and the number of Roman Catholics having
increased from 67,000 in 1760, to upwards of 1,000,000,
their chapels now exceeding 800, and colleges, monasteries,
'*ad other institutions having sprung up, there were good
reasons why change should be made in the mode of govern-
s ing'ahe Roman Catholic Church in this country. What had
•:, been done could not be undone. The total withdrawal of a
,„ bull or rescript was very rare; and there was no reason for
" the withdrawal of the rescript establishing a hierarchy. The
" son. and Learned Member for Plymouth had shown that the
language axed in creating vicars-apostolic was similar to
that used in the rescript. There was just, as much aggres-
' "lion in appointing vicars-apostolic as in appointing bishops.
The Bill would place the Roman Catholics of England in
'' &different position from the Roman Catholies in the wilds
of Australia or the back tlettlements of Canada. If the pre-
rogatives of the Crown had been invaded, it might be asked
Whether these prerogatives did not extend to the colonies?
Bet, if the State paid the Roman Catholic bishops in the
h. colonies, why not allow them to exist here on the voluntary
system? The results of the present proceeding would
oo of a melancholy and serious character as re-
l. garded Ireland, where the 'Roman Catholic hierarchy was
lenognized by law and custom, by Courts, in Acts of Parlia-
'neat, and in the very proceedings of the House of Com-
o' roans. The•24th section of the Act of 1829 had been vir-
teeny repealed by subsequent proceedings; for no chaplain ,
s, Could be appointed to a workhouse without the recommenda-
',-tion of the, Roman Catholic bishop; and under the Cha-
• rifable Bequests Act the title of a parish priest to whom a
• bequest was left must be proved by his credentials received
) from a Roman Catholic bishop. The statement of the Hon
and Learned Member for Dundalk on the effect of the clause
ltt, the Bill taken in connexion with the preamble had not
been answered. In his pastoral of February, 1851, Arch-
' hishpp Murray said the Bill, though nominally directed
Olga /nit Catholic bishops, was in reality directed against
ss, their. religion; and Dr. Ryan had expressed the feeling
,ilithich'pervaded Ireland, where the Bill was regarded with
esbniversal detestation, when he stated at a public meeting
s 1114 if the Government, waned to ruin the country they
' could not have adopted a measure more certain to produce
that effect. These were the opinions not of persons who
• Were accustomed to take part in politics, but of men of re-
: habits, who interfered little in the public questions of
•• the da.—(Hear.) It was said that public opinion pressed
• for legislationon this subject. He believed that there was a
party in the country anxious for legislation, but
heir principal object was to cover up and conceal the dis-
s oensiona that prevailed in the Church of England itself. He
!tamed the House against being led away by a cry of danger
wtthe Church ; a cry which, as the great Grattan observed,
'mid always been mischievous to the country; and he trusted
Abe Rouse would consider seriously the consequences likely
tO follow from their yielding to a cry so fallacious and foolish.
i.,.'"(Flear.) Strong charges had been made against Roman
:otholics of holding a divided allegiance, but he maintained
' that the Roman Catholics of this country held as undivided
• k 1 allegiance to the Crown as the most loyal of their Protes-
' ni ,fellow-countryman could possibly do. At the passing
Of the Emancipation Act in 1829 an illustrious Royal Duke
..
another place gave full testimony to this undivided alle-
giance on the part of Roman Catholics. The same loyalty
cctuated them now as then, and he hoped no further attempts
Would be made in the course of the debate to impugn the
shluct and character of Roman Catholics upon that head.
""(Hear, hear.) If proof were necessary to satisfy the House
as to the loyalty of that portion of their fellow• subjects, he
Ininght refer to the evidence given before the Committee of
~_°2s by. the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, in which he explicitly
anted that the autho-ity of the Pope was confined alto-
. gather to spiritual matters—that Catholics obeyed him in
trArifttal matters.only, and that in civil matters their alle-
alas_ Oce to the Crown was completely undivided.—(Hear.) It
*as said the late Papal act was an innovation on the
-.)°,t institutions of the country ; but he must remind the
11?tiae that their greatest institutions were derived from
-4'..laan Catholics themselves before the Reformation took
tweet, ani that they could have no desire to infringe in
pe least degree on those institutions. The Hon. Member
Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) said the recent act of the
°Pe interfered with the Protestant institutions of the
erAtry, but he gave no proof in support of the asser-
•°l3, and he (Mr. Scully) denied that it was the case. None
4:•tho grt statesmen of the present day except te con-
octed weitah the Government, supported, legislationho son this
(Pleation. A Noble Earl (Aberdeen) in another place ob-
4erv, eda with reference to this subject, that " conscience and
0
told
were beyond the sphere I.f legislation ;" and he also
tk.',ll them, that seeing the Catholic Church was tolerated in
.111 Country, it followed that they should have liberty to
aIVY out the organization of their Church in a regular man-
(,Hear, hear.) These sentiments were; he was happy to
1, participated in by nearly all the statesmen of the day
•"°t connected with Government. The House should not for-
et that theytwere legislating for millions of Roman Catho-
Ilea in this country, and that by passing this measure they
tould cast an insult on those millions. They should also
.ar in mind the thousands of foreigners, mostly Roman Ca-
tholic, who would visit us during the present year, and con-
!der what opinion they would form of he religious liberty of
,4 country which could adopt such a course of legislation.—
Itlear, hear.) Millions of his fellow-countrymen in Ireland
felt anxiously on this subject, and he begged the House se-
riously to consider the injurious effect which such a measure
1/41 thi present could net fail
to have upon all the interests
tlf that country.—(Hear, hear.)
kr. HUME looked upon this discussion as one of the
1101°se unfortunate occurrences that had taken place during his
t'g Parliamentary career. The Bill proposed by the Go-
,l_rutnent was the first step of retrogression, which would
Lace the Irish people in a position by which they would be
ss.'qulered a source of weakness instead of strength to the
Tiantry. To see the House of Commons in this age occupied
t 4 discussing such a measure was the most humiliating pic-
ssre that could be drawn. They were frightened with
"lad
less ows, and were bringing forward acts of the mediaeval
ka'a, as if they were applicable to the present time. It was
ts!'encholy to see such a measure as this engaging the at-
rition of Parliament to the total suspension of all public
sh,_•gainess. The promoters of the Bill were acting incon-
it:rtly with the principle on which the Anglican Church
sirt.,l depended ; for it was a measure by which they sought
teatirive one-third of their fellow-countrymen of the right
Plivate judgment. It was tyrannical, it was against the
~
ez;sutestant principle, and against that policy which this
eTtry had for the last thirty years been carrying out.
k-''Q Was it not, above all, melancholy to think that the
mobl
tel 8 Lord, who had always ibeen the advocate of
i
)_g,ous liberty, should be the man to change that
qeosin which was going on so prosperously in Ireland, and
ich was placing l'rotestants and Catholics in that country
the best possible footing, and to introduce in its stead
geological hatreds and religious strife? It was a grievous
Poa most unaccountable blunder. Within 24 hours after
4_g the Noble Lard's letter to the Bishop of i
Durham he
s is, • yum
e), in writing to a friend, stated that it was mpos-
es it could express the genuine sentiments of Lord John
atmseell—that it was impossible one whose life had been
e.etnted to the cause of promoting civil and religious liberty
thald have become so changed and have so suddenly assumed
I,:charscter of a persecutor, and that his belief was the
thte,...r was the production of some impostor. If, however,
oble Lord was the author of the letter, then he told his
tad that the Noble Lord must have been seeking to find em-
41tent for the ensuing session, and in that case the whole
I°n would be lost, and the business of the nation utterly
*,"acted Five months had elapsed since he (Mr. Hume) thus
siPte•to his friend, and he would ask the House whether the
thltlioil he at that period expressed had not proved true to
'very letter. The Hon. Member for Birmingham had
then-of aggression—indeed, " aggression, aggression," was
stitoorden of his song—but the Hon. Gentleman never
fed what that aggression was; he denounced the Catholic
thigion. and therefore voted for the Bill in order to put down
religion t
religion. If liberty could not exist where the Catholic
*here
existed, in what a situation was this country placed,
ssere the Catholic population was increasing year after
Lisr! • The Hon. Member for Birmingham would permit
L,,(Mr. Hume) to say, that the liberties of England de-
t'uedd upon its public institutions, and not on the religious
If 'along of the people. What was meant by religious liberty ?
aoe understood it to mean, the power of enjoying perfect free-
ra ia one's religious belief, and of using all the forms that
sere considered necessary to carry out that belief. If so,
then .in what did this alleged aggression consist? It had now
been proved that the letter of Dr. Wiseman, which had given
al much offence, was published without his authority. If
het were really the fact, did it not at once take away the 1
liole ground on which this charge of aggression was
ittlided ? For years past it had been allowed that vicars-
tol/°stoic shosld exist in this country, and they were bound
eobey the orders of the Pope in everything connected with
bieir faith. The Catholics of this country petitioned to have
totil°Pi appointed, and in 1848 bishops accordingly took the
~,7r of vicars-apostolic, by which their hierarchy was cona-
eed, and the full religious liberty of the Roman Catholics
ablished. What aggression, what insult was committed
to tv at proceeding ? In what manner could it be injurious
kitt`lls country? Why, by Act of Parliament they had again
ti . again admitted the existence f bishops in Ireland. He
4nled, therefore that any aggression had been committed.
east it worthy of the House of Commons, at this day, con-
te.-Ing what was allowed to be done in our colonies, to be
rho in passing a measure which it was never intended
de aid be carried into effect? It might be fit play for chil-
-14,1, but it was really below the dignity of grown-up men to
)347 occupied. It was pandering to the worst passions of men.
tekj; if the people of England were to be satisfied by having
ekt: a measure passed, why not confine it to England? Why
(44 qad it to Ireland or to Scotland? They were told that the
liett'ea had been insulted in having her supremacy invaded;
talthough that supremacy existed in England, his coun-
e•ell did not admit its existence in Scotland. It was not
It a tted either by. the Episcopal or the Presbyterian Church.
najo'Peared, therefore, to him that there was neither justice,
else n, nor principle connected with the Bill ; but that it was
h; gather an act of oppression towards those who had
esOrto been free. He could not support it, because, in his
aloe, it was a Bill of pains and penalties, and was the
;.Inning of a system which would not be confined to the
theillsto Catholics alone, but would by-and-by be extended to
th Dissenters of every' denomination. He regretted to sea
"isseuters, who had been allowed to enjoy their civil
g4t • Roman
44d 89 joining in the crusade against the Catholics,
herwilling to put them down.—(Cheer.) The Dissenters
Put tag achieved their own liberty, were found. assisting to
ttiv. e trammels upon the Roman Catholics. He believed
ley, forty-nine petitions were presented from the Wes-
a that • ht against the Papal
Wes-
ties at night aggression. He did
knownhe,l from what party in the Wesleyan connexion,
foss,`"er from the new or the old ; but he hoped the re-
-gest
koe, party would outnumber the other, for the Conference
&Wed to keep the people in ignorance and to become them-
sowes the Pope.— (Hear, hear.) They wished to have the
righiP of the Pope, and to refuse their congregations any
vie,l denied
power whatever, for the right of private judgment
tot `Renied by the Conference, as it was by the Pope. He did
tot with one more than the other, but he did not like
e be the Wesleyans calling for measures of repression against
Rare 3' of their fellow-Dissenters. If this Bill passed, and
117,;„ Put into operetion, how would they govern Ireland ?
ilia the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Hatchell) get
D tell the House?—(Loud and prolonged and ironical
tlllOO4 from the Irish Members.) The lainue had heard
QUI of the lAw pfficeris 0 gpfiluld, lincl they had A