The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-13 00:00:00

THE
_SUN,

the House? He might turn to those fifth-rate men who
made themselves the lecturers • out of that: House of those
whose opinions ho entertained, but who, in that House, never
uttered a word (Hear, and a laugb)—and, he would ask their
where would have been the cause of Pariiamen ary reform if
Catholic emancipation bad not been carried.? Where would
have been the cause of free trade, or where. might it be, if
the Roman Catholics declared against it ? Hear.) But he
was consoled on that part of the subject by reflecting that
there was not one distinguished Free-trader—he did not re-
fer to those gentlemen who shot their small arrows at them,

but who.never,stood against• them—but to those Free-
-traders who supported the question both in that House and
out of it—that there was not one who was not again :4 this

Bill.. The distinguished members of the late Sir R. Peal's
Government were against it; the Hon. M..inher for Man-
chester, the Hon. Member for the West Riding, and the
Hun. Member fur Montrose were against it. ( Hear.) He
would wart the Noble Lord, then, before he put this Bill
upon the table, that by it he tnigirit arouse again in the people.
of Ireland, who were just emerging from the conseqw-nces of
pestilence and famine, and just reaching perhaps the shore
on a frail plank, the fanatical spirit of sectarian animosity,
and perhaps involve them again in another twenty years'
struggle. If .indeed that struggle should come, the result
would be, he was convinced, as it had been betore, victo-
rious to the people of Ireland, and never would they sheathe
the sword until they had deprived those who had oppressed
them of thdrpower of oppression.heers.) They won that
struggle before, and they would win it- again. The Noble
Lord boasted, and, if he did not retract all he had done, it
was the proudest beast he could make, that he assisted them
in recovering and reclaiming religious liberty. If then by a
tyrannical uiajsrity in that House the Noble Lord struck
down their liberties that night,- they would go forth from
that House and would never cease until they had re•estn.-
blished shem. They would never be intimidated by mo-
mentary defeat. They had braved scenes of persecution :
the avenging sword of Cromwell was upon them; the in..
sidious treachery of the Stuarts beset then' ; exactions and
confications—he used the word openly, plainly, and ad-
visedly,—the confiscations in which the ancestors of the

Noble Lord had taken so . conspicuous a part, were up,n
them. But they had triumphed over them, and would
triumph again ; and they would do so, not forgetting their
allegiance to their Sovereign ; but, while acknowledging tha^.
allegiance, they would con-inue to assert, a. the Constitution
allowed them to do, their allegiance In spiritual matter. to
the supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church.
" llum domus Capitoli immobile saxum
Accelet, imperiumque pater Romanus habebit." ,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had certainly a very difficult task to perform, and
he certainly had no hesitation in saying that he did so with
very great ability. He should own, however, that it ap-
peared to him the case was beyond even the powers and talents
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Trio statement he
made on a former occasion, and alluded to by other Mem-
bers of the House. was, that with respect to Ireland, the
titles taken from sees, was forbidden since 1829, and that
therefore Rbman Catholic bishops were under the greatest
persecution from that time to this,or that the present Bill was
not one of pains and penalties. It appeared to him that that
proposition was undeniable, and the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman endeavoured to evade it. He (Lord John Russell)
would next refer to his obi.ervations with respect to the
necessity of consulting the . feelings of the people
of England. He said no doubt it was necessary
to consult them, but he did not say it was ne-
cessary to consult the Protestant, and all he did was to

consult the national feeling.—(Cheers.) He should say in
the same way, that when the Pope attempted to ob-
tain a complete dominion over France, that those who Ie-

. -
sisted it were those whose feelings ought to have been con-
sulted as the people of France, and although the great majo-
rity were Roman Catholics, they were not prepared to bow
the knee to a sovereign not their own, and a foreign prince.
—(Cheers.) It might well be said in that instance, that the
feelings of the people of Franca ought to have been con-
sulted, because they would not submit to decrees which
came from Rume.—(Hear, hear.) It certain'? was a mis-
fortune, as he said on a former occasion, that Catholic Eman-
cipation was so long delayed, because, as it was truly said by
Mr. Grattan the effect of it was perfectly to incorporate the
Roman Catholicsl with the See of Rome, and he asked no
better evidence of the truth of that assertion, than the speech
of the Honourable Gentleman who just sat down.—(Cheers.)
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman said that he did
not at all mind the Act of 1819, because it was never
enforced, and he called on him (Lord John Ilea 6$11) to
say would he now do so. That question had little to do
with the present Bill, because if the provisions were never
enforced, or if it were our determination to enforce them
against all those who took their titles from existing sees,
the present Act would haYe been quite sufficient, and no
new Bill would have been required. Then the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman asked, did they mean to enforce it
in the same sense as the provisions of the present Bill?
and quoted the opinion of a Learned Gen.leman to show that
the first clause did not apply to Ireland with the same
stringency as the present law. If no spiritual function.;
could be exercise& should the present Bill become a law?
How was it, that. in spite of an Act of 1829, these functions
were exercised from that day to this, and nothing was done
to prevent them? The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
said they did not enforce the present Act, but he should
remember that before that was done an offence must be
committed, and evidence given. The blame could not be
attached to Governments with which he was connected fir
not enforcing the Act since 1829. It was not alone to
Whig Governments, but to those of the Duke of Welling-
ton, and when Lord De Grey and Lord Haddington were
Lords-Lieuteuant in Ireland, and the present Chief Jus-
tice of the Queen's Bench in that country was Attorney-
General. But, independently of that, the Roman Catholic
prelates of Ireland changed the law, and did not in scarcely
an instance, use any assumption of sees or diocelids in Ireland.
Well, then, if with an exception, a most .iiierend arch-
bishop, who took a title to which he had no claim, no public
act of those prelates was signed by their titles, surely there
was no necessity for enforcing a law which was not violated.
—( Hear, hear.) It the Act was obeyed, what could they
expect further ? .What was intended was to prevent the
ostentatious assumption of those titles, and if that was
obeyed the Government would be satisfied with that obe-
dience ; solhat the" difficulty of the Hon, and Learned
Gentleman was no difficulty at all. What was. done in Ire-
land ? The Roman Catholics took titles from the ancient
sees since a period forty years after the Reformation, and
they saw no reason to interfere with that. It ought not to
he the business of this, or of any other Government, to make
out cases agains , them by inquiry; but when a person
comes forward and declares that the Pope has divided this
country into districts for the establishment of dioceses, and
that by his authority he has abolished the see of Canterbury,
then he must say that was not a question of exercising reli-
gious functions—(Cheers)—but a daring defiance of the
authority of she Crown, and what might be pro-
perly called an act of a :gression to which the Parliament
could not shut its eyes.— (Hear, hear.) This was an
offence against the nation, awl they could not therefore
except Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. What was
required by the Act of 1829 has been done, but if in Ireland
and in England by assuming these titles, they should set up
this authority against that of the Crown, in that case the
Crown ought to take steps to assert its authority. —(Cheers.)
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said the Act of 1829 was
repealed by the Bequests Act, which had been brought in
by the Government of Sir Robert Peel. Was it likely that
the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon should in-
troduce a measure for the repeal of an important part of an
Act which gave the right to Roman Catholics of sitting in
that House without ever adverting to such an alteration in
that measure. The words were, with regard to bequests,
" in trust for any bishop or archbishop exercising functions
in certain districts ;" and with regard to priests, they were
described as persona "having pastoral care and superintend-
ence over cong•egations of persons professing the Roman
Catholic religion." The next assertion of the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman was, that it was doubtful
whether the preamble was borne out by the law.
It was the general opinion of lawyers, that by
law they could not assume titles of any cioceses
in this country ; but when the Attorney-General stated that
there was a doubt upon that point they were justified in
acting on that opinion_ The Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman expressed an opinion that the law prohibiting the
assumption of titles was null and void. The Honourable
and Learned Member for Midhuret did not act upon that
impression, for he did not propose to insert the words " be
it enacted," but the words " be it.declared."' He could see
whether the preamble was borne out by the law. The
Honourable aed Learned Gentleman next stated that this
Bill was a violati mof religious liberty, and in metaphorical
language threatened them with the resistance they might
expect to receive from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, when
he said, they would.never sheath their swords until they
had overcome their oppressors. He was sorry they should
regard the Bill in the light of persecution, but on that ace
count they were not called upon to resign a tittle of the
rights inherent in the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) They must
preserve the sovereignty and independence of the nation.
He was not prepared to exchange the religious ',hefty
which they enjeyed in this country, and which the Romau
Catholics would enjoy after the passing of this Bill
for the religious liberty in Rome.—(Cheers.) They were
told that there was a person in prison in Rome fur circu-
lating a translation in Italian of the Sacred Scriptures.—
(Hear, hear.) It was not at Rome, but in another Italian
state.--(Hear, hear, from Mr. Keogh.) The Hon. Gentle-
man thought it a great triumph that the ease had not oc-
curred in Rome, but it was under the influence of Rome that
the occurrence had taken place. Would the Hon. Gentle-
man say that Prcee,tants would be allowed to build a church
at Rome, to go there publicly, and to defend their opinions
as here? No such thing.—(Hear.) That was the sort of
religious liberty they would enjoy at Rome. He rejoiced
that he could read " Wheteley's Logic," and other works
prohibited at Rome. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman pro-
duced an excommunition pronounced by a bishop in Scot-
land.—(Hear.) The title under which that bishop acted
was not legal, the clergyman had therefore an action
against the bishop, and got a verdict, and the bishop was
obliged to compromise the action. He esteemed himself for-
tunate that he could compare this country for the enjoyment
of religious liberty with any other, where the Church of Rome
had the prevailing power. The Hon. Gentleman displayed
an indignatioe which did him honour, against what had
been done towards a Minist .r of the King of Sardinia. Let
him be sure if these doctrines of the See of Rome, not the
doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion, bat the political
doctrines which they endeavoured to extend over Europe,
were to prevail, be would not enjoy ball the liberty and
halt the power of expressing his opinions and defending them
in that House which he now did under a Protestant Sove-
i:llign.—(Hear;tarwas a p
) He repelled the
to
i staetsesmuer. net of the
washe
eHon.
Member that
wp 00l
ui tt idc at
uo
tms eeaffseurr et
haeg ianms te ao f
political
se n
lcirooearctyh encroachment tee, and
ehoe
act of foreign aegrees i (Cheere.)
Mr. BRIGHT said much struck with an observa-
tion made by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon,
when he gave as a reason that he could not consent to
the Bill because the Governmentttr did not know what they
withwth
thet h e
country letter,
would suppose that some griev-
ous injury was done. This as fromwhich
had to do, or how to do The No
airy onebleLord
commenced
not ac-
quainted
was on
on the 7th of November,
the fr ay
and within a week of that time, accompanied
officers of State, the Lord Chancellor
by the great
lo
Chief Justice, assembled at the fesrtivaend the Lord
board of
the chief magistrate of the city of London. On
the occasion of the visit to which he had referred,
minutes after the loving, cup went round, speeches five
livered calculated to excite discord amongst her Majesty'swere de-
subjects. In the agitation which took place on this subject,
there had been thirty county meetings, which would sho
a strong feeling on the subject. Some of these meetingw
were very insignificant. ne of them was held in Yorks.
Special trains at half-price were engaged, and noblemen and
gentlemen announced to attend, but although the meeting
took place in a town with a population between thirty and
forty thousand people, not more than 2,50 J attended, and a
great many of them were Roman Catholics. There was no
agreement displayed by the speakers at these meetings as to
the remedy for the injury, if there was one. From the
smallest of the country practitioners to the greatest of them
there had not been found the soiallest thing that the Legis-
lature cou'd act upon. Then there was the celebrated Dr.
Cumming. who delivered a lecture at which Admiral Her-
court presided. They made the proposition that the Cardial
should be at once put on board ship andsent outof the country.
1 After.three months' deliberation, they had the speech of the

LONDON,

Noble Lord, which wal not very much to the paint. He
had now found out his difficulty, and he found that he could
not d-al with the matter -without thrriwing Ireland over-
board. The Noble LOrd objected to the Synod of Thurles,
but the Protestant-bishops and clergy had been as meddle-
some 'and troublesome, and more so, than the Catholics,
when they dared. Then the Synod of Thurles had been
equally divided upo / the quest i.ur, and that was more than
could be said of the Protestant bishops and clergy upon
eimihtr questions. When' the Noble'Lord made his speech
he could not point out the particular sin of which the Pope
had 4011 guilty, but had been obliged toyesort to what law-
yers would call cumulative evidence, in support of his case.
But the real offence was the importation of this bull, yet he
proposed to do nothing to prevent the introduction of an-
other bull. He (Mr. Bright) admitted that there had been
offensive language, but then he never found priests who did
not use offensive language. Toe language of the Pope,
offensive as it was, was rather -a form than a substance, and
was not a sufficient justification for the Lsgislature of Eng-
land to proceed to legislate upon the subject.. The supre-
macy of which the Noble Lord spoke was a mere fiction, and
it was so from the time of James the Second. At the pre-

sent moment there was no supremacy but that of the three
estates of the realm and of the law, and unless these late
proceedings had violated this, it was abs .rd to say that there
had been any violation of the law. The making of bishops
by the only power that could make them was no violation of
the law, or invasion of the prerogatives of the Crown. The
Qu en did not pretend to make them. It was no ignoring of
the Protestant Church, because the Pope had always ignored
the Protestant Church of England, and he took precisely the
same view of that Church which that Church took of ,the
Dissenters in this country. This was what one church al-
ways did to another. He was no friend to bishops of any
class.— (Hear, bear.) A constituent of his had pointed out
that this change was really an . increase of independence in
respect of the petaple. Vicars apostolic were subject to the
arbitrary will of the Pope, and those extraordinary statutes
which tie might please from time to time to enforce.
The chasge from vicars apostolic to bishops in ordinary was
for the benefit of the Roman Catholics of this country.—
(Hear, hear.) The course taken by the :r'ope was calculated
to relieve the Roman Catholics from much of that ultramon-
tane doctrine of which they had heard so much. The Noble
Lord said that a foreign power had attacked the independence
of this country; but the whole matter was one of sentiment.
He would admit that the language was insslent and offen-
sice, and he thanked the Noble Lord for not making this Bill
more offensive than it was. The question now was not a
question of Protestantism, but of politics. He would -lsok
at it as such. And now who were the injured? The Pope
and Cardinal Wiseman were unscathed. The true suf-
ferers were the Crown of England and the six or
seven millions of its Roman Catholic subjects. The
gulf which had formerly separated Ireland from this
country was this session made wider than it had
ever been before. This was an evil .of great mag-
nitule. The Noble Lord had adverted to the proceeding
at the Synod of Thurles as one of the reasons for bringing
forward this Bill. But at that synod one of the bishops
was in favour of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland; but the
Noble Lord's policy had united all the Roman Catholic
Bishops against tisese colleies. The missionary powers of
the Roman Catholic Church had taken hope from the present.
The Apostles put down page* nand established Christianity
by the influence of their preeching and washing. Luther,
single-handed, wrested from the Church of Rome the power
which it possessed. There they had Church identified with
the State, and supported by vast temporalities, and yet they
were afraid that this Church would be overcome by the
Roman 'Catholic Church, which had no power here. The
Church in Ireland was in such a state that there was not a
man in the kingdom that would hold up his finger in sup-
port of it, and it.only required the Noble Lord to lift up his
finger against that Church in this House to have it swept
away.—(Hear.) Yet this was the Church which the Noble
Lord said was; inviolate. It seemed to be a question be-
tween the Bishop in St. James's-square against the Arch-
bishop in Gol,:en-square. The Noble Lor.: said he had con-
sulted the Lord Bishop of London on this Bill. He re-
gretted that this course had been pursued. He had seen
that the bishop at one meeting shed tears. It was rather
a curious sight to behold a bishop with 20,0001. a year shed-
ding tears. It reminded bim of a story told of a monk of
Cyprus, who could shed tears as natural as he could exhibit
perspiration, and who subsequently teigsed madness to avoid
being made a bishop.—(Hear, heats) The Noble Lord felt
he was in a quagmire. At least his colleagues did, and he
thought the better, course would be for the Governmest to
withdraw the Bill, rather than proceed with it. The truth
rellir
was, the Noble Lti wAri practising a cheat upon the people
of England. They , anted a Bill to put down what was
called Papal aggres:4 4 but the Bill before the House was
riot the measure thittAtity desired.—: Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Member for Salford t aid that neither his Right Hon.
Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) ' nor 'himself represented the feel-
ings of his • constituents on this subject. This might-
be so, and the time would:; come when_ that question could
be settled ; but his H.6n. Friend had now obtained
the approval of a rev. parion in his borough who had al-
ways opposed him, but whesnow thanked God that he was
represented by such 'a nab. That House was composed of
six hundred and fifty-six Members. They were supposed to
be the foremost men in the country, and it was their duty
not to be the victim of a po: War cry. It was their duty to
stem the cry rather than td be led away by it. Loakinss at
England with her free press;'her progress in indusi ry and in
morals, she would be ever ,able to resist any aggression,
whether it cane from Lambeth or from Rome. He was one
hasdecstaitahahte had suffered
f
of a sect which had invariably upheld the principles which he
hoardatm principlesp tedto
which advocate-the Noble Lord a
(1
3eof
this sill to uphold, but he felt it to be his duty as a citizen
to raise his voice to withdraw it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SCULLY moved the adjournment of the debateSone
reason for which was, that the legal advirer of the Govern-
ment for Ireland had not given his opinion on the subject.
Mr. LAWLESS seconded the amendment.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion .. - ... 54
Against it ... 365
Majority against the motion ... ...--311
An HoN. MEMBER having moved that the House should
now adjourn,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose, and referring to the length of the
discussion which the subject had already undergone, said,
that in point of deliberation? they might very well be consi-
dered in Committee.— (Heir, hear.) After the divisions
which had already taken place, he was not disposed to detain
the House by further divisions. He would, therefore, pro-
pose the debate should be adjourned till Thursday next.—
(Loud cries of "Hear, hear,")

The debate was adjourned accordingly.
PROPERTY-TAX BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
third reading of this Bill.
After a few- words from Mr. COWAN, which were wholly
inaudible in consequence of the noise in the House,
Mr. HERRIES expressed a hope that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would not in the present state of the
House press the third reading of the Bill. It appeared to
him that the Committee on the tax, which had been
agreed to, should be aiipointed before the Bill was read a
third time.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, understand-
ing that the Bill was only to be passed for one year, consi-
dered that there could be ho objection to its being read a third
time. Ile appointment of the Committee was wholly inde-
pendent of the passing of the present Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. BERRIES inquired when the Committee was likely
to be appointed?
The CHANCELLOR of the EYCHEQUER could not say
until he ascertained what Hon. Members were willing to
serve on the Committee. He was in communication with
several gentlemen with a view of obtaining their services,
but two or three gentlemen, who he had hoped would have
served, had declined to do so. He had no doubt that in a
day or two he would be able to lay a list of the Committee
on the table.

In reply to Colnnel SIBTHORP,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
before stated that the claims of parties assessed under
Schedule D would bs fairly brought under the consideration
of the Committee.

The Bill was then passed.
The Apprentices to Sea Service (Ireland) Bill was read a
second time.
The report on the resolutions relating to conferences with
the Lords was considered and agreed 10.
THE WOODS AND FORESTS.
Lord SEYMOUR moved tor leave to bring ii a Bill to
make better provision fur the management of the woods,
forests, and land revenues of the Crown. and for the direc-
tion of public works and buildings. The measure was, he
observed, the same in its general features as the Bill of last
year, though there were some alterations in the details.
Lord DUNCAN hoped the Noble Lord would afford an
opportunity for discussing the measure on an early day. A
Bill of the same kind was introduced last year, but it WAS
thrown over to the end of the session, and was never dis-
cus4ed.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE suggested that the Government should
take the discussion on the principle of the met-,ure upon the
second reading.
Lord SEYMOUR, would state, when, be brought in the
Bill upon what day the second .ieadlng would take place.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
PETITION OF REV. PIERCE CONELLY.

The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY moved -"That the
order of the House (May 1), that the petition of the Rev.
Pierce Conelly bs printed for the use of members only, be
read, for the purpose of being discharged."
Mr. STAFFORD said, the circumstances of this case were
somewhat peculiar. It had been decided by the Printing
Committee th& the petition t'i which the Neble Lord's reso-
lution referred should not be printed in the ordinary way, so
as to be accessible to the public, and therefore it had been
printed for the usel of Members only. The allegations of
the petition were so extraordinary, and affected so many
persons, and the circumstances of the case were likely to
attract so much public attention at this time, that without
in the least wishing to prejudice the case on the one side or
the other, he hoped the House would not be led, by assenting
to the resolution, into the publication of a series of persona-
lities.

The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that it was
the excitement preVailing at the present moment which in-
duced him to take notice of this petition; under ordinary
circumstances he would not have done so. He happened to
enter the Committee on Public Petitions at the time that
petition was under consideration, and when it had been pro-
posed that it should be printed for the use'of Members only.
He moved that it should be printed and published in the
usual way, but his motion was negatived. He disliked
the half publicity which had been given to . the petition,
and demanded from the justice of the House that full pub-
licity should be given to it, in order that he might obtain '
information which would enable him to disprove its alle-
.
gations.
Mr. THORNELY said, that after much consideration the
Petitions Committee resolved to print the petition for the use i
of Members, because it referred to an unimportant question, 3
respecting which a Member had introduced a Bill to the
House; but they.refrained from printing it for general cir-
culation because it contained imputations of a serious nature
on the character of individuals. „
Sir R. INGLIS apprehended that if the petition were
printed for general circulation the House would be inyplyed
in another Stockdale and Hansard or Howard case. ,
Mr. ANSTEY reminded the Hon. Baronet that by the
provisions of the Bill passed a few years ago no action for
libel could be brought on account of anything cow ained in a
paper published by order of the House. All the facts stated
in the petition had been given in evidence before the3Eccle-
elastics! Court.
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND had known the petitioner
for two years, and had seen all the documents quoted in the
petition- ..
Mr. G. BERKELEY and Mr. KEOGH supported the motion.
Sir'G. GREY thought, that if the petition was such as it
was represented to be, the Committee had exercind a sound
discretion in printing it for the use of Members only.
iiallolrt.hAe GWLasltoe-NBY thought it absurd to attribute secrecy
to anything which had been circulated among' upwards of
600 persons. Most of the petitions would find their way
wwhalabel7n.. laugh.o—HtLEANgL
1 tEelask)e t, and then they would go==-no one knew
prevent him
thehim. ubfrjoemet orfeptehaetinNgobthleemLotrod
pwi airs
.
to refute the statements contained in the petition, there