The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-23 00:00:00

JULY 23, 1851.

I on the ground that they had a right to equal laws.—(Hear,
hear.) The public saw the effect of all this, and were
neither to be deterred by sneers, nor lad astray by the various
questions propounded for their consideration. The Noble
Lord that night had also attempted to lead their Lordships
into discussions wide of the question before the House. He
wanted to know what constituted an Established Church?
It was sufficient to know that the Queen was the head of all
the courts which had jurisdiction or r elationto ecclesiastical
matters in the realm.—(Hear.) It was against the Church
thus duly constituted with its courts, and the Sovereign at
its head, that they had a foreign power sending forth a
document—in which we were treated not as if we had no
church at all—but a church, which, at the discretion of
that foreign power, might be and was swept away—
( Hear)—while at the same time it gave a new ecclesias-
tical organization and hierarchy to England.—(Hear.) If
they turned to the rescript from Rome, they would find
that its aimed object was the restoration of the old Church
with all its consequences. The language used by the Pope
was, indeed, more sweeping than he used in relation to
Roman Catholic countries.—(Hear.) Any attempt to as-
sume that which could only be had through the authority
of the Crown was contrary to law. Their Lordships would
recollect that one of the charges against O'Connell was
that he had established courts of arbitration, in which
contending parties were to abide by his decision, and by
which he was thus to supersede the constituted tribunals
of the country. There was a law, moreover, of a general
character, which embraced the aggression, and which said,
that to enforce any document which attempted the prero-
gative of the Crown was contrary to, and a violation of the
law. It was said that the statutes of Richard 11. and of
Elizabeth, by which the importation of bulls from Rome
was prohibited, was obsolete—that it was old. Why,
.Magna Charta was old, but probably no Englishman
would be disposed to contend that it was obsolete. It
was well known, however, by those who had infringed
the law, that, whether those statutes were obsolete
or not, the importation of bulls from Romo was illegal ; and
hence there had not only been a violation of the law, but a
violation of it in the most offensive degree. And having to
take notice of an offensive violation of the law on so import-
ant a point, could they have introduced a more mild mea-
sure, or one in which they had manifested a more moderate
desire to vindicate the assailed institutions of this country?
It was said that they ought to have passed a resolution
on the subject. Were they, then, to have allowed this ag-
gression to proceed, and were they to disregard the
loudly-expressed feelings of millions of the people?—
(Hear, hear.) This was a mild measure under every point
of view; but if it were not so, still he would say
that their Lordships were not to take their lessons of
toleration from those who claimed it of them. They
were not to take their lessons in legislation from
the Pope, who thought the Inquisition an excellent aid in
promoting the interests of the Roman Catholic religion.
Persecution was necessary to the complete developement
of the Catholic religion. In a recent document the Pope
had shown that he quite ridiculed the idea of toleration. If
they wanted to see an example of toleration, let them go
to Spain and Portugal, and to Rome. They would there
see what toleration was, and how its name was prostituted.
But in restricting the exercise of the Catholic religion iii
England in the way proposed, there was no violation, he
contended, of the principles of religious liberty, and he had
authority for saying so. What was religious liberty? It
had been defined to mean the complete exercise of every
religious faith, provided that the exercise of it was not op-
posed to the general interests of the State. Now, that being
so, Paley said it was no violation of the principle of religious
liberty to impose upon the exercise of any particular
_wor-
ship such restraints as public interest might require. He
contended, now, after having carefully considered the sub-
ject, that there was no duty which the Catholic priesthood
had to perform under authority that could not be performed
by bishops in partibus, or bishops deriving their
title from foreign parts. It was not necessary to
the execution of their sacred functions that they
should be presided over by bishops having terri-
torial titles. The difference between bishops in partibus
and bishops possessing territorial titles was, that the latter
had a jurisdiction beyond the mere spiritual matters
which formed the general characteristic of their office.
He would contend that this rescript of the Pope was in-
tended to give temporal as well as spiritual power. The
object of the Bill was properly to prevent the assumption of
territorial titles. He was told that the people of Ireland
would not obey this law; but If Parliament passed the Bill,
as he expected it wouldothere would not, he anticipated, be
occasion to enforce it. If the Catholic clergy attempted to
raise rebellion against the Bill ho trusted that Parliament
would pass another law to meet the difficulty. The object of
justice was at an end if they did not vindicate the law. What
other course than the one that is proposed should they pur-
sue under the circumstances? One Noble Lord said they
should protest, and another that they should adopt some
other course; but he (the Lord Chancellor) would contend
that it was essentially necessary they should legislate, and
they were doing so in the mildest manner, and merely so
far as would meet the difficulty of the case. It was said that
the Attorney-General would not prosecute under the Bill,
but the Attorney-General was bound to answer to Parlia-
ment if he refused or neglected to do his duty as a public
servant. A prosecution on a religious matter should un-
questionably be brought under the responsibility of the
Crown. It seemed to him that there was no foundation for
the imputations cast upon the Government for taking up
that Bill with thej alterations which had been introduced
into it, and he therefore expressed a hope that their Lordships
would pass the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ST. GERMANS and Earl FITZWILLIACX rose to-
gether, and the latter Noble Lord having given way,
The Earl of ST. GERMANS proceeded to address their
Lordships. He could not avoid saying that he was much
disappointed in the speech of the Lord Chancellor, a speech
which was much better adapted for the atmosphere of the
Mansion-house:than for their Lordships' House.—(Hear,
hear.) It was, in ,fact, a no-Popery speech.—(Hear.) He
confessed that he could not see anything in the conduct of
the Roman Catholics of Ireland which justified the course
of penal legislation. In the recent rebellion, if he might
speak of the late outbreak by such a term, the parties en-
gaged in it were Protestants, as was the case also in the re-
bellion
of '9B. The address of the Roman Catholics, which had
been referred to by the Noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle),
had been signed by eight or ten Catholic Ppers, approving
of the act of the Pope, and expressing their disavowal of
any intention to stand aloof from him in that proceeding. He
contended that the vicariates, under the old system, were as
objectionable as the bishoprics under the new, if the argu-
ments on the temporalities were valid. But one Noble
Lord had given them an example from Naples. He eer •
tainly must say he did not expect to hear foreign absolute
powers held up as an example to us.—(Hear.) But it would
be recollected that with these powers, or the greater portion
of them, the Pope had a concordat, by which both parties
gave up something for the sake of a defined position. In
short, he thought that a fallacy had run through the whole
of the arguments of most of the Noble Lords who had
spoken on this subject. They had confounded the temporal
with the spiritual power. No one would more strongly con-
demn any aggression on the power of the Sovereign than
he would, and allusion had been made to the aggression on
the Sovereign as:the fountain of honour. But there were
many subjects of her Majesty who bore the titles of Baron,
Count, and so forth, not conferred by her Majesty, and be
never heard of their being iobjected to. There were many
of them in Ireland, and at least one whose name was often
mentioned in England—Baron Rothschild, and he was not
aware that the title had been conferred by the Sovereign'
The title of bishop merely signified an office in the church.
It had been conferred by the Pope on persons in America;
and though they were as jealous of their temporal sove-
reignty as we could be, yet he had heard no objection raised
either by the Federal Government, or by any of the state
Governments,to the assumption of such titles as Bishop of
New York or Bishop of New Orleans. There was evidence
to show that the canon law had been exercised in England,
though not quite in the same form as it was at Rome ; and
canonthat
lbeingaw so,
into whatthis
country?was this
information
ed:tes)
ieriteatdi
nnhshntetaedlrihitorkLiadsoetbeeunoaitc
bishops.
hwnhi ooseehn,pdopal:oft.e,Lfheoavotipnchlrel
which
000wfnno
operationui rhhldeee aswant
iffodb
jee
oehlc woolsack
dcaaokanf
Bhdrt
invalidate
gvtoßi
aftvi
loleipl
dn,
kaaaintnnteoshdwe
ill
conclusion he
it, would only say, that knowing a great deal of
Ireland, and taking a great interest in everything that con-
cerned there was no measure that had so deeply affected
him as this, and his fears were strong that it would lead to
a long reign of agitation and animosity that must have the
most injurious effect.
The . Earl of MINTO said that there was a clause intro-
duced into the Diplomatic Relations Bill of 1848, which, by
excluding priests, he feared would prevent the arrangement
of diplomatic relations with Rome. When at Rome he
certainly heard of the projected appointment of an arch-
bishop for England, but he had no idea that the choice
would have fallen on Cardinal Wiseman. He supported
the Bill.

Earl FITZWILLIAM said, he was desirous of making a
few observations before their Lordships came to a division.
Ho approved of the Bill, because he thought the act that
was done by the Pope required the interference of Parlia-
ment. He thought that some measure was necessary, and
that none was more effectual than the disallowing of those
territorial titles which had been assumed. When he
looked at the Bill, he nevertheless was dissatisfied
with the proposed measure, and he confessed he
was alarmed at the language which had been used
by the Lord Chancellor. As he (Earl Fitzwilliam)
thought some measure to be necessary, he would, how-
ever, give the Bill his support. He admitted that
legislation was necessary, but not such legislation as that
of the present measure. By the mode, however, in
which the other House of Parliament, and her
Majesty's Ministers in that House had acted, they were
driven into a corner, aid they had no resource but to pass the
Bill. He was compelled on that account to give his support
to the measure, but at the same time he did not think it
should be extended to Ireland, as that country had nothing
to do with the aggressions which had called for its enact-
ment. He had always been of opinion that the Roman
Catholic religion ought to be established in Ireland. He did
not mean that it should be so to the exclusion of the Pro-
testant establishment, but that it should be co-established
along with that re!igion in Ireland. It was, however, to
England only that the rescript of the Pope referred.
And it was to England that the measure ought to be
confined. He] had great objections to the establishment
of a Roman Catholic hierarchy in England. He had
no objection to that Church providing for the wants
of the Roman Catholic population, by the appointment
of additional priests, but the establishment of a Roman
Catholic hierarchy was what he could net consent
to. lie could not shut his eyes to what was now taking
place throughout the country in respect of this subject.—
( Hear, hear.) He knew well what was the power the Roman
Catholic priests exercised on the lower orders of society, but
he could not, at the same time keep out of view what was
taking place among the aristocracy in respect of this subject
—( Hear, hear)—and he did not hesitate to say in respect
to them, he would place more reliance on the lower orders
than he would on the aristocracy.—(Hear, hear.) So far as
the aggression itself was concerned, he would have met it by
a simple resolution of both Houses of Parliament, declaring
that no such titles should be imposed in this country without
the consent of her Majesty, and he would have extended that
prohibition to both civil and ecclesiastical titles. He would
have prohibited the use of any of those titles in England:
but he would have granted that permission in Ireland, be-
cause there the Roman Catholic religion was the religion of
the majority. He would, therefore, vote for the second read-
ing of the Bill, though, at the same time, he believed that it
went further than the exigency of the case required.
Earl HARDWICK supported the Bill with some reluct-
ance, and simply for the reason that he considered a great
public principle was at stake, and which had to be vin-
dicated. Was it to be supposed that this Bill would carry
out the views of the Government in Ireland? He believed
that so far as that couutry was concerned legislation would
have to be again resorted to before the question could be
considered as settled.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied. He bad not
heard a single statement made in the course of this
lengthened discussion to justify the conduct pursued by
the Court of Rome. Even the Noble Lord who led the
opposition to the second reading could only urge the
habitual annoyance and assumption of that Court in ex-
tenuation of the aggression which they now resisted. The
Bill would administer a ,useful ;lesson to the Pope, and
would, by attacking his bastruments in this country,

Cut short the career of Papal usurpation which
he evidently appeared bent on pursuing. With reference
to what had been said as to the alterations made in the Bill,
he had to observe that several attempts to make the Bill
more stringent had failed, the amendments in several in-
stances having been withdrawn by the parties who moved
them, because her Majesty's Government refused to give
the amendments their aupprt. He denied, however, that
Government was answerable for the alterations made in
I the Bill. A Bill was introduced by Government for a
particular purpose, and the alterations which had been in-
troduced affected the machinery and not the principles
of the Bill. Because the machinery of the Bill had been
somewhat altered, Government would not have been
warranted in abstaining from proceeding with it.
The good that he anticipated from this measure,
which he doubted not would be passed by a large majority,
would be that it would disabuse the mind of the Pope of the
error into which he had fallen as to the feeling of this coun-
try, and would prevent him proceeding in the course which
he seemed bent upon pursuing. For the reasons which he
had stated he hoped they
of the Bill. would agree to the second reading

Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—

Contents, for second reading
Present . , 146

Proxies ... ..
..
Not contents, for amendment--

. 119-265

Present ..• ••• • • .•• 26
Proxies ... ••• ••• .. 12- 38

Majority in favour of second reading ... 227
Their Lordships adjourned at Five minutes to Four
o'clock.