The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-05 00:00:00

uei-ra in the case before it should be sent up to the Lords.
But that opportunity was then passed, and he teemed
with the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon
that it would be better to refrain from any attempt at
regaining the position by again opening up the discus-
sion. He regretted much if, in consequence of any sug-
gestion which ho might have made, he might have been
indirectly the cause of whatever had occurred. While
ho was bound to express his conviction that neither the
Noble Lord nor the Government were chargeable with
any blame, he should deeply regret to point out
any measure by which it might have been avoided.
But the Noble Lord had stated that on the whole he was
responsible for that Bill, but that under the particular
circumstances ho was not responsible for the amend-
ments introduced by the Hon. Member for Abingdon.
Assenting to that responsibility of principle, he differed
from the Noble Lord as to the application of that prin-
ciple. What were the assurances which her Majesty
gave at the last opening of Parliament? " I have to as-
sure them of my resolution to maintain the rights of my
crown and the independence of the nation against all
encroachments from whatsoever quarter they may pro-
ceed. I have at the same time to express my earnest
desire and firm determination, under God's blessing, to
maintain unimpaired the religions liberty which is so
greatly prised by the people of this country." He did
not think that the suggestion made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Abingdon agreed with the expression
of sentiment which the Noble Lord had counselled
the Sovereign to make. No doubt there were
many different constructions put on that amend-
ment. The Attorney-General said there was
no persecution, although there might be vexa-
tion.—(Hear.) It was very difficult to draw a line of
distinction so fine as that. He wanted to know whether
one man writing a letter to another came within the
meaning of putting in use and execution a Papal brief?
Then, it appeared to him, the Noble Lord was responsi-
ble for sending up to the House of Lords, with the weight
and authority of his recommendation, a measure which
did not correspond with the sense of that great principle
and importance of religious freedom which Ministers ad-
vised her Majesty to use in a solemn manner in her
Speech at the commencement of tee session. The Noble
Lord said religious liberty was not likely to be violated
under the Bill—that there was no likelihood of such
scenes occurring has had taken place in Tuscany, where
a gentleman was unwisely and unwarrantably punished
for reading the word of God for the edification of his own
soul. It was very well for a Prime Minister to stand up
in the House at this time of day, and to point to a coun-
try centuries behind ours in the expression of civil and
religious freedom, and the establishment of these great
principles, and say, ",Don't be afraid; we are not going
back to that abyss from which it has taken us centuries
to emerge." He protested from taking the first step
backwards towards that abyss. Did the Bill touch reli-
gious liberty or not? That was the real question. He
was deeply struck by an observation which fell from the
Noble Lerd, that the real aggression was this—that the
Roman Catholic Church pretended to recognise no
Christians but themselves, and to assert that all baptised
persons were of right all subject to the Roman Catholic
priesthood. That, said the Noble Lord, was the real
aggression, and so long as the aggression continued, it
would be impossible to erase certain enactments from
the statute-book. A declaration more important, or of
more fatal meaning, he never before heard fall from a
Minister of the Crown. Because what was this aggres-
sion? Was it a new assumption? Certainly not. It
was an essential principle of the religion they professed
to tolerate. The Noble Lord founded his justification
for the measure not on any new act of the Pope, and he
deprecated aed lamented the manner in which that act
had been done as much as the Noble Lord; but the
Noble Lord founded his justification of his measure
on the claim to the exclusive principles of the Roman
Catholic faith respecting Christians, which, however we
may dislike it, has all along been the open, the avowed,
and the notorious principle of the Roman Catholic
Church—a strictly religious principle, capable of being
confined by wise laws to spiritual dominion. They
founded their legislative enactments on Papal and Car-
dinalistic language. They legislated against acts, which
whether right or wrong, were apart from the language—
acts done in a spiritual sphere, which it would nave been
wisdom, as it was our duty, in no manner to interfere
with. They had not succeeded in proving the temporal
character of the acts. The Noble Lord said nothing
was easier than for the Roman Catholic Church to ap-
point priests with inoffensive titles. It was not possible
for all religious persuasions to regulate their tenets so
as to make them perfectly palatable to all who did not
belong to the same creed. lie was pleading for no
rights 'for the Papist—he was not pleading for respect
to the Pope from the Legislature—he was not pleading
for any prohibition Government might issue against
Papal 'bulls,—but what he was pleading for was equal
religieus freedom to all classes of her Majesty's subjects.
He looked only to the mixed religious beliefs of the coun-
try, and he cherished an ardent desire that the House
would persevere in such a course of legislation which
should 'avoid the calamityof religious divisions, and which
should+ bind us together in civil and social concord.
But what said the Noble Lord? something very different
to that` Could they show him that the appointment of
Roman' Catholic bishops was a temporal proceeding?
They could not. They might find ingenious arguments
to prove such was the case, but he could prove the con-
trary by the Bill. He could show them that in the case
of Scotch bishops, 'were territorial titles existed, they
were saved by this Bill.—(No.) The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman :opposite says these titles do not exist; he meant
deubtless they did not- exist according to law. Then
only just leave as much existence to the titles of the
Roman Catholic bishops, and not only the bishops
would bo content, but the Pope himself would be con-
tent.—(Cheers.) It was not for the purpose of making
a point in argument that he said this, but for the truth
and justice of the case. He said aid they assert that
territorial titles were the object of the penal enact-
ment, when they saved them in the case of the Scotch
bishops. He deeply regretted to see the Bill passing
through that House; he knew how vain it was to reite-
trate intreaty when there was no opportunity of re-exam-
ining the measure, of examining the whole historical and
legal bearing of the measure. Having now stated his
sense of the responsibility under which the Noble Lord
had placed himself—which could not be extenuated by
any argument raised by the conduct of private Members
of that House—he must be content, under the circum-
stances in which he stood, once more solemnly to renew
his protest to the Bill, as a Bill hostile to the institu-
tions of the country and the established religion, because
it taught that religion to rely upon other than its spiri
-tual strength and inviolability, which alone could give
it vigour—because it tended to undermine and weaken
the law in Ireland—because it departed from those prin-
ciples of religious freedom on which the wise and under-
standing people of this countrypermanently built their
legislation of late years—and because it tended to relax
those bonds of concord and good-will which ought to
bind together all classes and persuasions of her Majesty's
subjects.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to explain that the Right
Hon. Gentleman, in quoting from his speech, had only
quoted at portion of his remarks. He bad said that the
See of Rome did not avow the existence of any Chris-
tians bud, those of her own Church, and went on to say
the consequence of that assumption was that the Church
of Rome, pretended to give territorial titles, and to go-
vern the :whole people comprised within that territory,
which Oetension to give such titles did interfere with
the prerogative of the Crown, and liberty of the people.
The Marquis of GR ANBY had hitherto—avoided
either in ,r out of the House, expressing an opinion on,
the ques ion; he ~ was therefore anxious to express his
'sentimen a before the debate closed, and to assign his
'reason fo having given his support to the measure of
her Maje ty's Government, although he had been obliged
to dissen from some of their propositions. In conse-
quence o the observations made by the Right Hon.
Gentlem n the Member for Oxford, he hoped ho might
be allowe to refer to them. His Hon. Friend said truly,
that the uestion to be decided was, whether they were
by this B 11 interfering with the civil and religious liber-
ties neces ary for the due exercise of the Roman Ca-
tholic rel

ion. On that view of the question. was the

country ti
dissented
Friend.

support or condemn the Bill. He totally
from the speech of his Right Honourable
le had throughout the whole debate heard

.... _
no argunient to prove that, the introduction of the bull
was nee scary for the proper exercise of the
Roman qitholic religion. He had asked several Irish
Members Ito get up and show him where any re-
ligious fupactions were interfered with by penal enact-
ments in the Bill. Had this been the case he should
have beei one of the most strenuous opponents of the
measure. But what was the language of the Papal brief ?
Did it sa3i that the Roman Catholics were labouring un-
der penalties or unjust laws? No such thing. It went
on to say,! " Under the system of vicars apostolic the
Roman Cl3tholic religion had greatly increased in Eng-
land." This showed that no impediment was inflicted on
the spree or the exercise of the Roman Catholic creed.
1
But in th pastoral of Archbishop Wiseman ho found an
expressio to the effact that the links of the Roman Ca-
tholic religion were not 'made stronger or more united
by this hi archy—for that was not needed—but only bur-
nished an more beautifully wrought. Now what was

meant by tl
to explain;
not intend,
and liberti

lose expressions? Ho had asked Irish Members
but ho had received no answer. The Bill was
.d to infringe on the civil or religious rights
Is of the Roman Catholics, but to preserve

intact the 'civil and religious rights and liberties of the
people of this country. The Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford had said they
were descending into an abyss—that they were taking
a step baeXward. If so he (the Marquis of Granby) had
the consolation of knowing that the amendments of his
Hon. and. Learned Friend the Member for Abingdon
had not made the Bill more penal than it was before on
the authority of the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment; ; while on the authority of the Right Hon.
Gentleman; the Member for the University of Oxford
he had the.satistaction of knowing that the Bill had
been by their means made more efficient. would,
therefore, only add, that he rejoiced the amenineets of
his Hon.land Learned Friend had been adopted; and
that the Bill was npw of that nature which, while it
interfered, with no rights, civil or religious, of the Ro-
man Catholics, was calculated to meet the just wishes of
the Protestant people of England.
Lord H. VANE agreed with the Right Hon. Member
for Oxford, that in the hands of the Noble Lord the Bill
would not be misapplied; but he believed, nevertheless,
such was the liberal feeling of the country, that it would
be inoperative, and that no Ministry would attempt to put
it in operation.
Mr. FARRER expressed his hope that the Bill would
be inoperative, and that it never would be put in opera-
tion. He hoped the good sense of the Roman Catholics
would, however, render it unnecessary to make it a prac-
tical measure.
Mr. S.'HERBERT had heard so many and such va-
rious statements from authorities upon both sides of the
House, that it appeared to him quite impossible to say
what this Bill was, or what would be its effect. In
reference to the policy which had proposed the Bill, he
would re tid the speech of a Noble Lord made early iu