The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 21, 1851.

arch
was the law as laid clown in their authorities. He
"aid then
briefly call their attention to the oath taken by
cardinals. It was to the following effect :- " I promise and
• ear from this time forward and as long as I shall live to
f• aithful and obedient to the bishopric of St. Peter, t r his
evelees
s the Pope, the Head of the Catholic Church, and
tewssatl will fight for (the word used was propugnor), endea-
issis and stand forth for him, against all others, with all my
tilength and power." Could a man after taking that oath
w" the oath of allegience to the Queen?— ( Hear.) What
thai the rule in making a cardinal. "That man or boy (for
ey 80MetfineS, too, made boys cardinals) having been made
eardinal, from that moment ceased to be under the control
of
ale father." Now it was not enough for the Pope to have
specked our constitution by sending that ca-dinal, who was
:tern to fight ir him against all others, and eight other
wide all
to this country; but he should presume also to set
ref" ell the bishoprics in England. The Hon. Member here
trerred to and read a couple of extracts from the Papal re-
tolPt in reference to the old existing arrangements and cus-
of this country, which the new bishops were to assist
. modelling anew. Indeed he (Mr. Drummond) had
e4eaver seen one of those pastoral letters which did n t
I...taia a falsehood in itself.—( Laughter.) It was as-
ti fed in a pastoral letter n Ireland the other day
qBL the see of Canterbury had been established by Pope
lersseg°rY• Now, any one who took the trouble to read the
established Bede, might ind that it was the King who had
that see ; and, indeed, there was no evidence of
sotePe having attempted to do anything of himself in this
ee:trY without the sanction and interference of the civil
ar. But they bad been told by the Papal organ (the
thriet newspapeis we believe), that all their legislation upon
br,4t subject would be null and void, because it was op-
tiled to the *doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. (The
Member here read an extract from the journal in qu-s-
-e,,,,y2. That was the arrogant tone assumed by their oppo-
Cr He would, however, next pass to another class, the
2110 f utilitarians, who asked bow the matter would touch
11ler, Pockets. These gentlemen said they wished to know
protedle! any persons, or any class, were demanding t:heir
bi4loh. But did the negro slave ask for. protection ?
e fri-ndless child ask for protection? Did the poor
eith:_ho was locked up in a convent, where she might be
et ks_e starved or flogged into acquiescence with the views
Ttr'r superiors, ask for protection ? (Cries of " Oh, oh.")
tilts height cry " Oh, oh," but he would tell them that
see n •
salts unnenes were either prisons or brothels, they might
their choice.
ardibe Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he rose to
t - " Hear, hear," from the Roman Catholic Members.)
had but that moment entered the House, and he had
titittrel the Hon. Member for Surrey—unless he had mistaken
es "ords -he had heard him say that a nunnery was either
jelson or a brothel. He asked the Speaker whether it was
bierier for any Hon• Member to state that those nunneries
atislrhich resided ladies - (Hear, hear) -who devoted them-
the 'es to the service of God, who endeavoured to attain to
ree Perfection of all evangelical precepts—whether it was in
,04!! for any Member of that House to refer to them in terms
..411sgraceful?— aims, hear.)
lize SPEAKER said that in answer to the question of the
1:10-"te Earl be should say that nothing had fallen from the
sLI• Member for Surrey which was inconsistent with the
4sorn of debate allowed to Members of that House.
tO t 8 rs GRATTAN rose and hastily uttered a few words
it, did not reach us.
ltsr. MOORE said he would suggest to the Hon. Member
;_s.the observations in which he was indulging were calcu-
C 75 to lead to retor and retaliation, and that it would not,
Q 3 opinion, be consistent with the dignity of the House
as. the Hon. Member should indulge in such language.
ik,pl'. DRUMMOND said he was obliged to any Hon. Mem-
iteks?tn whom he received any merited correction. But he
himself been interrupted in his argument by the excla-
prZ)fts of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would, however,
'ed, and then they would see what was that evangelical
ettiosi to which the Roman Catholic Church was advanc-
eofi The Noble Earl (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) had
ties th
them on a former occasion that he had presented a peti-
to e Papal See for the very thing that bad lately been
81 that the Pope in sending over Cardinal Wiseman
ho WA establishing a Roman Catholic hierarchy, had done
Sely what the Romal Catholics in this country had
t
teed him to do. Now he (Mr. Drummond) bad never
hiut that petition, but as the Noble Earl had said that it
tsbeen presented he could have no doubt of the truth
114 S'e statement. But he said that that was directly in
thaeth of another petition which bad been presented to
liesfePal Court by other Roman Catholics. He held in
ett;aod a petition, signed by Lord Petre and a number of
(114 respectable Roman. Catholic gentlemen, in which
1144 ueprecated the adoptisn of any scheme which would
missionaries of the religious orders of the
liege of voting at the election of vicars apostolic.
o.ti.sat was the very result which would follow from the
114Pa:tit of the scheme which had just been introduced into
le, country. Under that scheme the great mass of the
ti att Catholic clergy would be in a worse position than
to.tc7 which they had previously opied, and would be
Illththout redress against the u
oppression of their
Without
; for they might at any moment be dismissed from
lis4lrings by these bishops without any reason being as-
peed for their dismissal. They were, however, generally
11it Its who had no other means of gaining a livelihood, so
iirkplitgerydwaiol;ild be
_dependent on the will of their bishops
bread. He held in his hand a letter written
:;Roman Catholic priest, a friend of his, and published
tsledJeers ago, in which that reverend gentleman depre-
%to, ,any attempt to increase the powers of the vicars
"te "e by converting them into bishops in the manner that
itiereleeently been adopted. That showed that that was not
boss! chap
a question of title, and that it was not true that the
boss! change did not trench on the rights of the great
lillehof the Roman Catholic clergy and laity. He held in
tletedand a letter from a Roman Catholic in Rome, and
teui this very year in which the writer stated that a brief
ktgibeirig prepared' to force on the Roman Catholics of
feeniand the canon law of Rome, which was very different
itish the canon law of this country, inasmuch as it made
"et,* absolute masters of all Church temporalities, such
stittscltlests and benefices. The writer added that the great
!tee' of the creation of the new mock hierarchy was the in-
ction of that canon law, which would by that means
esolfablished for the first time in this country. He had
the 'etbrs from Roman Catholic clergymen denouncing
stvetterript to render them wholly dependent on the will
lts'eir bishops. (The Hon. Member here read some ex-
sps from those letters.) Now he would say that if no
tiss:else would stand up for those poor men, he had a
11/47; to do so.—(Laughter from the Roman Catholic Mem-
tt,9 Dr. Unattiorne had asked whether information of
thssdescription was communicated by Roman Catholic
aigYhatn imei n full
made
ne
t with the Church ; but he knew
Ls tf they madhemse themselves k nown they would at once
tt:elarived of their livings. Dr. Wiseman had treated the
eittsge as one which would not affect the position of Roman
tsktolics in this country. But he (Mr. Drummond) would
to 7anythieg could be intended more dieeCtly to deceive
Sste'''
e'7
r. utnen Catholic laity than
ne the pamphlet of Dr. Wises
t Why, D Wiseman kw that it was directly calcu-
et ttto mislead the Roman Catholic laity. Let them look
the 6 Pamphlet of Lord Shrewsbury, which had " let
by cat out of the bag." Dr. O'Finnan had been dismissed
irk order from Rome from the bishopric of Killala, f r
llietwshee reason than that he had appealed to British law—
ts4e had appealed to the Court of Queens Bench
year 1837 ; and Lord Shrewsbury, in his letter
APHale, said :—" Dr. O'Finnan, one of your
Sitie suffragans, was dispossessed of the diocese of
44, 11,,, and another thurst into his place, as the successful
Pelies°l an intrigue in Rome." The pretensions and the
S,.°l the Papal See had remained at all times un-
!_llesa4'es's• He had at that moment extracts from the writ-
no less than 21 Popes—(A laugh)—he did not mean
A read
este them to the House—extending from the year 731
*eta i`a very recent period, all asserting that the Popes
theords paramount in things temporal as well as in things
th, Hear, hear.) There was not a doctrine of
140"9nlan Catholic Church for which he could find
"ger One Pope said that
es, or more unbroken testimony.
ass ell denied that be was lord over temporal matters
:1t!..." as over spiritual, were " wild beasts"—(Hear,
vf $' and laughter)—were " were the " body
tliteat"art:'—were "members of the devil and of Anti-
Zat *'"•
,(Renewed cries of "Hear, hear," and laughter.) It
`tieswe'l known, however, that Popes had deposed Sovereign
gisees'ee, and had absolved their subjects from their elle-
qsest• Seven councils had given decisions in favour of the
elstiraoLf the Popes to supreme temporal power. But he
4"cl he told claim had been disputed. Yes; but
,istss;::._heen.dispnted.? They had heard . the index expur-
ne ?", Which contained a list of all brooks condemed by
aPal See. The writings of none of these Popes had
diept,itt into the index expurgatorius, whila all the writings
il2g their claim to temporal power, which were prin-
e t 9 the productions of Frenchmen, had been put into it.
St It would be idle to deny that the Popes claimed a
po
ral superiority over Christendom just as much as they
Vey(sve.r what was called St. Peter's patrimony. Dr.
'Ns's In his letter to Lord Liverpool, made use of the foi-
l:41"e language ;as" It is quite obvious that these claims
net their origin in the Gospel, or in the doctrines of
Ronan
s,_ an Catholic Church, but in the state of society
1;
"oe zeal and the mistaken ambition of Popes, directed
slnsatiable avarice, pride, and thirst for power." But
~forwlaina had, nevertheless, been put forward and en
fra't• Pope Boniface, writing to Philip le Bel of
4 te
te e. after sending him many greetings, said_
'4.4"s wish you to know that you are subordinate to us, both
IltPoral and spiritual concerns ; and Philip wrote back
12011
"S " Philip, by the grace of God, to Boniface,
IlereriE
as. Pope, little or no greeting—(A laugh)—you are
test by informed that in temporal concerns we are not sub-
Aa teat
to you" What were the means by which the
Ves had carried out their doctrines upon that subject?
e.:43', by excommunication and by a denial of the sa-
e,enents. Now, the sacraments had been given as instru-
Z'ts of grace to the laity, but priests had taken them as
ei,clritments of persecution and villany. One of the things
%s at that Bill to be most regretted was, that it had prevented
ef,i hurltoman Catholic laity from rebelling against the Synod
4 e
kr. POWER—No such thing.
rearirDRUMMOND—Why, the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
"), 'fle Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) had told them
NI The Roman Catholic divines taught that all who
ltes,N for their own spiritual advancement should yield an
tegleit obedience to their spiritual superiors wherever they
la4t be. In a well-known work they were required to
~s
Ai me "as a stick in the hands of a man who walked
111.11141 t. and as dead bodies, perfectly passionless." In an-
eN. Passage it was stated that nothing could involve an ob-
et leo t •
es_ to sin unless a superior commanded it in the name
114'4r Lord Jesus Christ, or in virtue of holy obedience.—
tioe hear.) Dr. Wiseman had lately published an edi.
ita the', Exercises" of Loyola. In the preface to that
sverioe said, "In the Roman Catholic Church no one is
stsii.t_oseed to trust himself in spiritual matters; the So-
tes s„,.‘", Pontiff hims-lf is obliged to trust to others in what
'ns his own soul." Now number 13 of those exercises
414, as fellows :—" That we may in all things attain truth,
~Vre may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it as
iss le principle that what we see white we must believe to
tlist"" if the Church so commands it."—(Hear, hear.)
4reghas the evangelical holiness which Cardinal Wiseman
Its; tae,t,' Why those men appeared like Thugs. The Thugs
Zee sk-"tted murder as an act of worship ; and those men told
Med an act of worship. There were plenty of liars in the
soipo ; but in that case they had men pretending to be wor-
hiCstre '.f God ready for the sake of that worship to say that
has ,S,was black.—(Hear.)* Talk of degradation ! Where
1;4 i'enre any negro slave in such a "state of degradation as
7_llte.„Arnitlst all the horrors of the slave trade the negro was
to express truly his opinion of the sugar which he
e"rge• -s* Pope said that an " honest man was the noblest work
The -,‘";" and men of every sect ought to disdain to tell a lie.
see -Cntry was indignant upon that subject. But some
nri,,slembers had stated most unwisely—and no one more
'otier'Y than the Hon. Member for Ayrshire—that the
SO did not care about the matter.
tskr• ,I3SWALD—I beg pardon, I never said so.— (Hear.)
Nat VRIJNImO continued—Why it had been saill
e2eit souse over and over again that the people had ee.n
the
to the agitation of that question, and that they did
;oit are about it. He was sorry they had been exc.ted in
aY they had been.—(Laughter, and derisive cries of
Itte, ar, hear," from the Roman Catholic Members.) He
(k• 4eo trader in Conciliation Hall nor in monster meetings.
,P,rieeiniewed laughter from the same Members.) Both in
'414 te and in practice he hated their Whig doctrines and
Thep Radical performances..- (Continued laugher.) Whe-
uilrwr Members willed it or not, he would state the truth,
"445 r think that if they attempted to rule this country

by their mandate from the Flaminian-gate, no one was to be '
allowed to challenge their anthority ? (Hear, hear.) The
Protestant Members of that House had not sworn yet to obey 1
that mandate, although Hon. Gentlemen opposite had done
so.—(Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh.") 'the people were
at present willing to abide by the decision of the leaders of
the parties to which they looked up, and to abide by the
decision of that House. But it those leaders were to throw
them over, if the House were to refuse to give them sufficient
protection, they would take the law into their own hands ; and
the only way to preserve the public peace would be to give
them a Bill with adequate powers for ensuring the objects
they had in view. Of course when the nation was excite
—(Laughter, and cries of Hear," in a very loud and jeering
tone from a few of the Rernan Catholic Members)—when the
people were excited. men were influenced by various motives;
but if there was any one feeling- in which the peoplee were
more unanimous than in, any other, it was in an honest John
Bull hatred of imposture—(Wear, bear)—and of impostures
and in pity for their dupes.— (Derisive cheers from the Roman
Cotholic Members.) Were they going to have in this coun-
try cargoes of blinking statues, of bleeding pictures of liqui-
fying blood, of Virgin Mary's milk ?--(Lciu3 cries of " Hear,
hear," from the same Members.)
Mr. OTLAIIERTY rose to order. He was not a very ex-
perienced Member of that House ; but he respectfully an-
pealed to the English House of Csturnons—to a body which
he had always understood to be composed of men of gentle-
manly
feeling —of men who would not permit any portion of
the Members of that House - (Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—
or any portion of her Majesty's subjects, professing no matter
what creed they might conscientiously believe to be right—
who would not permit them to be wantonly insulted; and he
did hope that even at that moment there would be some ex-
pres ion of feeling with reap ct to the language which had
been held by the Hon. Gentleman whom he called to order.
—(1-lear.) He believed that Gentleman's language was
worthy of his tastes as well as his judgment.
'Sir G. GREY here rose, but immediately gave way to
other Members who seemed eager to address the Hoese.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. P. HOWARD seconded the motion.—(Crass of
" Chair" and " Order.")
The SPEAKER said Let me intreat of Hon. Members
not to interrupt the regular course of the debate. But at the
same time I do hope, that on a question of so much delicacy
as this, upon a matter which relates to the religion of a por-
tion of her Majesty's subjects, Hon. Members will abstain
from all expressions of an offensive character. (Cheers.)
Mr. DRUMMOND again rose, but was for a moment in-
terrupted by
An HoN. MEMBER on the benches occupied by the Ro-
man Catholic party, who exclaimed—" We are not here to
be insulted.
Mr. DRUMMOND then proceeded to say, that an Hon.
Member had last night pointed out to them the fact that Car-
dinal Wiseman had specially selected—The Hon. Gentleman
had not concluded the sentence, when
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the lion. Member for Sur-
rey, having been reprimanded, ought in common decency to
apologise. - (Oh, oh )
The Q,PEAKER said—The Honourable Gentleman is him-
self g•dlty of a breach of order. I did not call the Honour-
abte Member for Surrey to order, nor did I venture to repri-
mana him. I only took the liberty of expressing a hope
that the Honourable Member, in the course of a debate so
delicate, and so exciting as the present, would abstain from
using expressions likely to cause irritation.—(Hear.)
Mr. MOORE rose to order—(Cries of "Order" and
" Chair.")—The expressions used by the Hon. Member for
Surrey were not merely disrespectful to the religious feelings
of some Members of that House, but would be out of order
in any Christian assembly.—(Great confusion,)
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman is clearly out of
order.
Mr. GRATTAN-1 am an old Member of the House, and
I call the Hon. Member for Surrey to order in consequence
of the improper expressions he has used. I have a right—
and I know it has been done—to move that his words be
taken down. I ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Go.
vernment, and the older Members of the House, if I am not
in order, and if your predecessors, Sir, have not taken that
course?
Mr. DRUMMOND rose to speak, but the uproar was so
great that he resumed his seat.
Mr. GRATTAN again insisted that he had a right to have
the words taken down.

The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman is clearly mistaken
in his view of the rule. The Hon. Member for Surrey is
entitled by the rules of debate to use any expressions he
pleases, prov ded he u,,es none personally offensive to any
H n Member or one disrespectful to the House. All that I
said was by way of caution, and not as a reprimand.
Mr. J. O'CO eNELL again rose and insisted on his right
to address the House amidst the greatest confusion.
The SP EAK ER I must call on Hon. Members to support
me.—(Loud and protracted cheers, which lasted several
seconds.) I have already stated that the Hon. Member for
Surrey was not out of order, and I beg now that we may pro-
ceed with the debate.—(Renewed cheers )
Mr. DRUMMO vti said—l was not out of order, and I was
not reprimanded; but I was provoked by repeate I and offen-
sive interruptions to say the things which, in the heat of
argument, escaped my lips. I have not been reprimanded,
and I do not in substance retract one word, but I say that, if
I have given offence, whether merited or unmerited, to any
individual, I humbly beg his pardon.—(Hear, hear.) Now I
will go to another subject. Cardinal Wiseman has told you
that his model and example is Thomas a Becket, in whose
footsteps he would tread. The fate of Thomas a Becket
(continued the lion. Member), cruel and unjust as it was,
was only the end of a long series of disputes, the object of
all which was to do what is now attempted—namely, to
create a hierarchy and establish a system which should ex-
empt the priesthood from the control of the temporal power.
The Protestantism of England had been characterised as de-
mrniacal. (Oh, oh.) Oh ! they did not like to heart re-
torts: but he asked seinper ego auditor tantum. nun quam
reponam ? (A laugh) His belief was that this Bill, as far
as Ireland was concerned, was manifestly unjust and uncalled
for; but he thought they must pass a law to prohibit car-
dinals from living in this country.—(Hear, hear.) They
must pass a law to mike all deeds done under this canon
law null and void de facto. They must enact a law, as to
convents and monasteries, similar to that existing in Bava-
ria, and not permit vows to be taken; and he would extend
the Mortmain Acts, so as not to allow any dying man to be
robbed, whatever might be his seet.---(Hear, hear.) In ad-
dition to this, his belief was that they had arrived at a state
of things not only with regard to the Roman Catholics. but
also with regard to the Churches of England and Scotland
and all similar bodies, in which they could go on no longer.
There was a book which some of them were not allowed to
read, and that book contained several letters addressed to
laymen, and two letters addressed to two bishops. In
the letters to the laymen noth.ng was said about the love
of money, but in the letters to those two bishops it
was declared that the love of money was the root of all
evil. It was not necessary that they should imitate all
that their fathers had dine, but they should do their duty in
their generation, as their fathers had done in theirs. He did
not deny that the support of religi n by the State might at
the commencement have been useful; he did not deny that
monkery might also have been useful; but it was his firm
conviction that these institutions had come to an end, and
that their utility had ceased, and that it would be impossible
to continue them. It was the tendency of priests of every
sect to domineer over the people, and he would conclude, in
the language of Cardinal Bembo, when he said be mixed
himself up with the concert a of priests with great reluc-
tance, for he generally found them guilty of all human
wickedness, covered with a diabolical hypocrisy.
The SPEAKER. having left the chair nor a few minutes,
the House presented a scene of great excitement, Hon.
Members assembling together in greups and engaging in
earnest conversation. Mr. H. Grattan crossed the House,
and addressed a few words to Mr. Drummond. accompanied
by very animated gesticulations, and retired to his seat, fol-
lowed by that Hon. Member, and Mr. H. Grattan was after-
wards surrounded by a large number of Irish Members, with
whom he was engaged in conversation when the Speaker re-
turned.
The Speaker having returned, order was restored, and Sir
James Granam, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Moore rose to ad-
dress the Houee.
Sir J. GR eHAM having been called upon by the Speaker,
proceeded to say—l am glad, Sir, a short pause has taken
place in our proceedings, and I hope nothing will tall from
me that will tend to disturb the gravity of this debate, and
the calmness with which the great subject now before us
ought to be discussed.—(Hear, hear.) I bend, Sir, implicitly
to your decision in every matter of order. I did not think
it was possible, until within the past half-hour, that any
would tare aggravated,my sorrow on account of the
revival of this painful discussion, in which the subject of re-
ligion is involved; but I must say, that what has just oc
cursed has further excited my most extreme regret.—
(Hear, hear.) I have seen a gentleman—an accomplished
gentleman and a scholar—so much heated by the subject
that he was discussing, as entirely to forget what was due
to the feelings of a large body of gentlemen sitting iu this
etehra,
thfeeal
lr .fr)o
mI
him,
not sully my lips
.words—H
House on terms ofwi
tphe
repeatingr fect equatl ihtey
i individually
and still less Members
shall
this House, in reference to t
both with respect indivithluearll to Hon. of
I think of repeating an allusion he has made to the female
(heier God, according to their
f relatives of those gentlemen— Ch ere)—who have devoted
themselves to the service of t
House may on this occasion
but if Roman Catholic
have been observed to the letter,
consciences, in lives of seclusion and in lives o
chastity.—
(Cheers.) The orders of the
tane
—(Hear hear. ) Asserf
scenes like this are to be repeated?-
Members are to sit here and to take part in our debates, how
are are the rules end orders of the House to be mami.
tions of the kind that have been made, sad the tone and
must not be repeated,
manner in which they have been made,
if the freedom of debate and the order or rules of the House
are any longer to be maintained. (Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member has said that he would enlarge the scope of this
debate, and he has treated us to a subject entirely of a reli-
gious kind. I shall venture also to enlarge the scope of the
debate, but I am happy to say I shall treat it as a political
question.—(
that I should ill discharge my duty, considering the
Hear, hear.) At the same time, Sir, I think
immense extent of field now op by those preliminary
en on the question before
us, if I detained You any longer
remarks, and I shall proceed at once to enter into
the subject under discussion.--(Hear, hear.) Having, in a
short manner, addressed the House on a former occasion with
reference to; this subject, I shall, in what I Man
to ad-
dress to you, repeat two admissions I made on a former oc-
casion. lam glad to make them, as they will tend to clear
the ground I intend to occupy. In the first place, I said,
what I now repeat, that I do think that the language used
by the Pope in this rescript. and by Cardinal Wiseman in his
pastoral letter, was arrogant in the extreme, and needlessly
offensive to the feelings of the great Protestant community
of this country.—(Cheers.) And I shall go further, and make
this second admission, that I think it was extremely difficult
for the servants of the Crown to have passed by that offence,
which had deeply wounded the Protestant feeling of a large
body of the community of Great Britain, in silence and con-
tempt.— (Hear.) And Ido think it might have been neces-
sary, and probably was necessary, in some authoritative way,
to re-assert those great Protestant principles which were
fixed at the Reformation—which were vine Actdica of Settle-
went ttlhe-
RmeeTnotl,uatni odn —w
which
e re wererat
ratified
ofinr confirmedmemorable occasionsd by the
by the solemn compacts which were entered into, first on the
union of Scotland with England, and subsequently on the
union
Britain.—(Hear.)igthuesGtihrehatthat,iasd h
raisey Ithe Hon. will not
n
Member for the University of Oxford, as to the various
enter o f Iriehlatondthwe
modes by is which th • might be done. I will not now discuss
whether it was possible to issne a royal proclamation, as-
serting strongly the supremacy of the Sovereign relative to
all temporal matters • and also her spiritual supremacy as
acknowledged by the members of the Church of England,
and as established by its rules, and generally appealing t
her subjects to maintain the principles to which I have
alluded, as having been settled at the Reformation, at the
Revolution, and by the Act of Settlement.—(Hear.) I will
not, either, discuss whether it might be possible to adopt
resolutions by the two Houses of Parliament, to be embodied
in an address, and sent up by the two Houses to the foot of
the Throne, or discuss the third suggestion which the Hon.
Gentleman made, that the offence which was given should
he matter of direct communication with the Court of Rome
through the medium of a special embassy.--(Hear, hear.)
There was one suggestion of my Honourable Friend to
which I could not give my assent after the experience
of the last summer in the Mediterranean ; that
was to meet the thunder of the Vatican by the
more formidable thrader of her fdajerty'a fleet, under

the orders of Sir William Parker, at Civita Vecchia or
Ancona. - (Hear, hear.) The question before us is narrowed
as to the way in which it is proposed is meet this aggres-
sion, if legislation b r the right mode of meeting it—and if so,
if this be the right Bill to promote it.—(Hear, hear.) When
I say this Bill, I hardly know whether it is my duty to dis-
cuss the Bill in the shape I hold it in my hand, or in the
amended shape in which the authors of the Bill propose to
pass it. (He ir, hear.) The strict rule of the House, and the
most proper rule, would lead me to discuss this Bill as it is,
and I am very much confirmed in my decision so to do, for
I confess my own first imression, when I heard the altera-
tion that would be made in Committee by her Majesty's
Government, was to entertain great doubt whether the pre-
amble of this Bill, taken in connexion with other laws,
would not carry into effect the provisions of the second and
third clauses.—(Hear.) Tuat was my impression at first; I
had great doubt about it; but that impression was subse-
quently very much strengthened by the opinion quoted by
the Hon. Member for Dundalk, which I hold in my hand
and which. was given by three eminent counsel—Mr. Bethell,
Mr. Bramwell, and Mr. Surrege. Those gentlemen, being
authorities of the highest order, have given deliberately
their opinion that the first clause with the preamble would
in fact carry into effect all the provisions of the second and
third clauses which her Majesty's Government proposed to
' exclude. (Hear.) That assertion was made before her
Majesty's Solicitor-General addressed the House—( Hear,
hear)—but I never heard that he grappled with the ques-
tion. It was not levity, lam sure, that caused him to pass
it over, and if it be not levity our position is a remarkable
one ; in that event, I apprehend, her Majesty's Government
would be bound to vote against the second reading of the
Bill.—(Laughter.) The first Minister of the Crown said
most frankly that the second and third clauses were con-
trary to their intentions, that they were clauses they would
not carry into effect. lie said the second and third clauses
interfered with ordination in Ireland, and the collation to
benefices and traversed bequests made to bishops and priests
and their successors, and altogether would produce such an
effect as he neither contemplated nor desired, and that it
would be his duty to withdraw those clauses.—(Hear, hear.)
But, really, the withdrawal of the second and third clauses
will have no effect while the preamble and the first clause
stand.- (Hear, hear.) Then, Sir, her Majesty's Government
must feel that it is impassible for them, acting under a sense
of duty with reference to the second and third clauses, to
maintain the first clause, if it have the effect which I appre-
hend they are not prepared to maintain.—(Hear.) I shall
now pass on to other considerations—to far greater and
higher considerations. My principal objection to the Bill is
first, that it is an extension of a penal enactment; and in
the second place, that it is the reversal of a policy, and cal-
culated for doing great evil.— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Now,
Sir, I am at once met by the serious difficulty which almost
always meets us whenever we legislate in the va'n hope,
where a question of religion is concerned, of reconciling the
conflicting interests of Great Britain and Ireland.—(Hear,
hear.) A"d if I had any doubt upon this matter before I
heard the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
Solicitor-General, I cannot now entertain the slightest doubt
that there never was a matter bearing so strocgly upon the
peace and good-will of Ireland towards this country, or of
greater importance than the Bill we are now discussing.—
(Hear, hear.) I must, however, observe that I entirely agree
with her Majesty's Government in thinking that, as they
conceived the rights of the Crown were affected by what
is termed Papal aggression, and as they resolved to legislate
upon the subject, it was impossible to deal separately with
the case of Great Britain as contradistinguished with Ireland.
—(year, hear.) I think with them, that if there be
legislation of this kind attempted, it should be legislation
embracing the whole of the United Kingdom, and a great
additional objection to the argument of legislation being the
way to meet this aggression, is that it is absolutely neces-
sary, Wpm legislate for England, to embrace Ireland, and
to deal with the whole of the United Kingdom.—(Hear.)
And what falls from one of the law officers of the Crown
who has addressed you? It is quite clear from what the
Solicitor-General has said, that circumstances that arose in
Ireland have nacre to do with this Bill than even the arrival
of Cardinal Wiseman or the intention to found a hierarchy
in place of vicars-apostolic.—(Hear, hear.) What was the
circumstance on which he dwelt? He was pleased to de-
signate the prelate who is at the head of the Roman Catholic
Church in Ireland, the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, as
an Italian monk.—(Hear, bear.) And not satisfied with that,
he dwelt upon the Synod of Thurles as one of the princi-
pal reasons why this legislation was necessary; and what
was the statement he made? He says, this Bill is effectual
for the purpose of doing what? These are his words; he
says, " They could not have an episcopal jurisdiction—they
could not introduce the canon law—they would not as-
semble any synod to oppose the decrees of the Imperial
Parliament, unless they were bishops with territorial
titles, and that this Bill effectually prohibited."—(Hear,
hear.) Observe, by striking at territorial titles, it is the in-
tention of this Bill to put down the organized episcopacy of
Ireland, and to deprive them of the power of meeting in
synod ; and the reason assigned is, that the Pope, the spiri-
tual head of their Church, selected as a person to place at the
head of the prelacy a clergyman of the Church of Rome—
a person whom he designates as an Italian monk—( Hear.)
If this Bill be useful for any purpose, 1 doubt the law of the
Solicitor-General or his description being accurate; but if his
description be accurate, then I say all that was done in 1829,
admitting the Roman Catholics to an equality of civil rights,
is rendered as nothing by the blow you now direct against
them. For 200 years—long before Catholic emancipation -
there was an organized episcopacy in Ireland ; the canon law
did prevail in Ireland, unmutilated and undisturbed by our
legislation, and, whether designated synods or not, the Ca-
tholic prelates of Ireland did assemble, and meet, and come to
conclusions on all matters spiritually affecting the people of
that country, and published their decisions, which had the
effect of synodical meetings. And if the purpose of that Bill
be what the Solicitor-General said, and its effect what I be-
lieve he is wrong in stating it to be, then most undoubtedly
the blow you are going to inflict is infinitely more severe
than any fetter on the freedom of Roman Catholic worship
in Ireland that existed under the penal code, and previous to
the year 1829.—( Hear, hear.) I must be permitted since
this question presents itself to my mind in this aspect, and
with reference to what will be the bearing of this measure
upon Ireland, shortly to retrace our policy with regard to
hat country ; and, Sir, I have lately been struck by reading
a publication which within a short period has been given to
the world. I mean the corresposdence of the late Lord
Londonderry, better known by the name of Lord Castlereagh.
It contains letters written at the time of the Union, and
there is amongst them a secret letter written by Lord Corn-
wallis to Lord Castlereagh in 1800, which appears to me to
be full of wisdom and of warning.—(Hear, hear.) He was a
man distinguished for the great services he had rendered to
his country in every part of the world, and at the time of
writing the letter he had been just diseharging the duty
of suppressing by force of arms a rebellion in Ireland.—
(Hear.) He had succeeded, and it was to be expected that,
flushed by a contest of that kind, and recent successes,
he would have been the very last to have councilled
what is termed concessions to the Roman Catholics of
Ireland; but what was the lesson of wisdom which he
taught? He said that if the Government of this country
at that time promoted the union, it should be promoted as
the means of effecting a great end, and that great end was
the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, the admission of
laymen to perfect equality of civil rights, and some endow-
ment for the Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Pitt and
Lord Grenville on this side entirely coincided in opinion with
Lord Cornwallis, as did Lord Castlereagh, who was in Ire-
land. Lord Clare gave an unwilling consent to the union ;
he came over to England and used his influence with Mr.
Pitt to throw aside the condition of immediate emancipation
and endowment, and made his support of the union con-
ditional on the surrender of that portion of the policy
of the Government. - (Hear, hear.) Lord Loughborough
obtained the ear of the King, and when his consent was
asked to that portion of the policy, King George 111.
positively refused his consent to emancipation.—(Hear
hear.) Lord Cornwallis was unwilling to remain
in Ireland under such circumstances, but be wrote
a letter to Lord Castlereagh—a secret letter—and,
with the permission of the House, I will read it : -
" tiolding Ireland on eur present tenure, how are we to make
head against all Europe leagued for our destruction ? Lord
Kilwarden again spoke to Littlehales on the subject, and told
him that the Catholics placed their trust in me, and in-
sinuated that his object of my remaining in the Government
stter the completion of the usion, was to carry the point for
them. Whatever Lord Loughborough's opinion may be of
the practicability of concession, he will, in a short time, or I
am much mistaken, find it still more impracticable to resist."
- Vol. 3, p. 418. "Timid men will not ventnre on any
change of system, however wise and just, unless their fears
Britainolv,
are alarmed by pressing dangers."—Vol. 4, p. 20. "The
evil genius
is
thist e
is proscriptionthe
000 r os
of the;
but C at
perhapshol Catholics."— .
Vol. 4, p. 1 o3f. N
the
House will allow me to refer to a subject of a more lively
though not a less instructive character. Loyd Cornwallis
failed in being able to obtain any solid advantage f. r the
Roman Catholics; but failing in that, he did not with-
hold from them that which was courteous if not agreeable
to their feelings. Now, here is a letter written
in very familiar terms, by Mr. Cooke, then the
under-secretary of Lord Castlereagh. He says :
"We had a dinner at the Castle yesterday. The Titular
Primate of all Ireland, the Titular Primate of Ireland, the
President of Maynooth (and other noblemen and gentlemen
whom he names) formed part of the company." He adds,
"We were all very cheerful and pleasant, and the Lord-
Lieutenant made all the play."—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Now, he did not hesitate to show-them courtesies, and that
not by the exhibition of vice-regal splen lours, but by in-
viting them to the Castle, and giving them their designa-
tions of" titular primate of all'lreland," and " titular primate
of Ireland." Now, Lord Granville writes also to Lord Cas-
tlereagh, and he says, " to neglect the Catholic clergy, or to
depress them in their station, or lessen their influence with
their flocks, must, I think, while so large a portion of the
Irish nation profess the Catholic religion, be the very reverse
of wisdom."—( Hear.) But, notwithstanding all these warn-
ings, until 1829 no concession was Made to the Roman Ca-
tholics. Now, what happened in 1829 ? Why, " the Con-
queror of a hundred battles," the firmest man in all the world
—the firmest in resistance where a sense of duty compelled
him to resist—the Duke of Wellington—(Cheers)—he, in
concert with Sir R. Peel and Lord Lyndhurst, who had been
the greatest opponents of concession on principles which they
never hesitated to avow, and which they defended in Parlia-
ment with the greatest ability, without any change of
opinion, yielded reluctantly to an overwhelming necessity,
and made this concession at last, which Lord Cornwallis and
Mr. Pitt had wisely intended to make at the time of the
union.— (Cheers.) Now, was this done partially or hesitat-
ingly by those eminent persons? It was my good fortune to
be associated with the Duke of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst,
and Sir Robert Peel on the first occasion on which they really
resumed and enjoyed power after the concession had been
made. Did they ever hesitate to give effect in its broadest
sense to the new policy which circumstances had compelled
them to adopt? Some one said on a former occasion that the
tenderness of Sir Robert Peel's Government in matters re-
lating to religion was ever shown to the Catholics. I don't
think the Protestant Dissenters can be so ungrateful as to
forget some of the concessions that were madelto them. The
Dissenters Chapel Act cannot be forgotten it ought not to
be forgotten, because it was the occasion Of the memorable
speech of my late lamented friend, Sir W. Follett, which
was the noblsst effort of Parliamentary oratory he ever
made, and it was his greatest and last.—(Hear, hear.)
But with respect to the Catholics, that was the policy of
the' Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. Did they
cast a longing eye towards the revival of the civil code ?
'
What was the Bequests Act? It indicated pretty plainly
their desire to conciliate the feelings of the Catholics, so far
Church in that country. But this is not the whole case. What
as consistent with the maintenance of the Established
was the conduct of Lord Lyndhurst, the
,Lord Chancellor of
that Government, acting with the full concurrence of the
of
Cabinet, and with the concurrence Lord Stanley? Did
the receipt in this
he not propose in the House of Lords the entire repeal of the
statute of Elizabeth which prohibited
country of bulls from Rome? The Bill came down to this
House, indeed, in a: state somewhat anomalous, I admit : we
proposed the entire repeal of the statute; the House of
Lords consented to the repeal of the penalties, but left the
offence, without the penalties, still standing in the statute.
Now, this evening, when the House was not so full, the Hon.
Member for Cork county (Dr. Power) referred to what passed
in 1629, when this particular penalty was inserted in the Relief
Act, which this Bill now seeks to extend, and said an impor-
tant proceeding took place in the House of Lords in Commit-
tee with respect to that Bill. The clause imposing a penalty of
1001_., upon the assumption of titles derived from sees ()CCU-

pied by prelates of the Established Church was proposed by
the Duke of Wellington; and when it was so proposed by
him, he stated expressly th It he did not tender it as any se-
curity whatever for the Established Church. I will read
you his words. lie said, "It is certainly no security ; but
it will give satisfaction to the United Church of England and
Ireland." Now there is a moat remarkable circumstance to
which the Hon. Member for Cork referred. In 1792, the
Irish Parliament took a course exactly similar to that which
her Majesty's Government now called upon us to take, and
passed a law to prohibit the assumption of any such titles in
Ireland. How lon s did that remain in the statute-book?
Let the House observe the period when it was passed ;
it was in 1792, when we were still at peace with France.
—(Hear, hear.) In 1793 circumstances were changed; •
Louis XVI. was beheaded, and we were at war with re-
volutionary France. The right of voting was given to
Roman Catholics in Ireland, and the Act of 1792, prohi-
biting the assumption of those titles, was summarily re-
pealed. - (Hear, hear.) But the Duke goes on, and he says,
" This was one of the incidents which made it so difficult to
legislate on this subject at all." Her Majesty's Ministers
are now well aware, I dare say, how prophetic that warn-
ing was. —(A laugh.) He says, "He was aware this clause
gave no security to the Established Church, nor benefited it
in any way; but it was inserted to give satisfaction to those
who were disturbed by the assumption of those titles by, the
Catholic clergy." The Bishop of Durham, a most distin-
guished prelate of the Established Church and the Divinity
Professor at Oxford, repudiated this clause altogether; he
says he does not desire it as any security; it is no security
whatever, and he does not ask for it. And Lord hid-Jus-
tice Tenterden tells you the clause would be inoperatiye, and
he proposed that which would be perfectly operative,. namely
tha-. the acceptance of the title by whomsoever peen, on
the part of a prelate should be made a misdemeanoine The
Duke said, "That would be perfectly operative; but I must
resist this clause; it would be a statutable recognition of the
power of appointment by usurpation, and to such an admis-
sion of usurpation I will not be a party. (Hear, hear.) Now
again, I must take the liberty of repeating what was stated
by he Hon. Member for Cork as a remarkable circumstance.
Lord Malmsbury, who had been the strenuous opponent of
all concession to the Catholics, made a speech on that occa-
sion, which is an exact summary of the arguments on this
occasion ; he said, " I think the exclusion of Roman Catho-
lics from Parliament is a bond fide security, butt you have
decided against that security e' and then he says, " the
clause about assuming titles is a joke, and worse
than a joke, for it will have the effect of pro-
ducing the very agitation which you are ,eeeking to
allay."—(Hear, hear.) Now it has been a deed letter, or
nearly so, in Ireland. Dr. M'Hale has somewhat ostenta-
tiously, I had nearly said openly, transgressed time law. Lord
Lorton called on Lord Melbourne to institute a lorosecution,
but Lord Melbourne, after deliberation, told Lord Lorton
that he was not prepared to incur the responsibility of &-
reefi i
ng any such prosecution to be instituted..{ Hear, hear.)
The Duke of Wellington was present on thateaccasion—the
author of the only penalties which were needlessly inserted
in the Relief Act; and what did the Duke say? Did he
stimulate Lord Melbourne to proceed? Quite She contrary.
He joins in giving his entire approval of the piiideace which
dictated the refusal of Lord Melbourne.- (Cheers.) Now,
in arguing this matter, it is necessary to observe the distinc-
tion between the theological and legal part of' the question,
and the spiritual and temporal. Now there is no doubt—and
we, the Protestant part of this House, are opposed to such
an assumption of power—there is no doubt the Pope of
Rouse has claimed spiritual jurisdiction over all baptized
souls within this realm. That is an assumption of the Pope
which bears date long prior to the Reformation, which was
not withdrawn at the Reformation, which has never been
abated, and that power of the Pope has existed undiminished
and unabated from the earliest times down to the present
moment. Now, I conceive that the exercise of this essential
power, whether it has been by vicars apostolic, as in Eng-
land, or by the intervention of a hierarchy, as in Ireland,
where a hierarchy has existed without interruption for cen-
turies - (Hear, hear) -is a question of very secondary import-
ance. The question is—are you prepared to deal with the
pretension itself? and I say our forefathers were wiser, and,
until I see you commit the error, I think you will be wiser
too.- (Cheers.) It lies at the very root of the Roman Ca-
tholic religion ; and if you seek to combat that pretension,
you may strive to eradicate the religion, but you never can
succeed; and if you attempt to eradicate it, away with such
a Bill as this - (Loud cheers)—you will have to recur to the
blood-stained code of Elizabeth.- (Hear, hear.) That code
signally failed, and so signally failed, that Even in my time,
by the common consent of the greatest men in this House.
that code has been regarded as nothing else than a disgrace
to our country.—(Cheers.) Now, with regerd to the confu-
sion between spiritual and temporal. I ant of opinion that
from the earliest times there has been very great care and
very great skill shown in the statute law of this country, in
making a pointed and distinct definition between the spiri-
tual and temporal power of the Pope. The s atutes of
provisors and praarounire were not framed on a denial of
the spiritual supremacy of the Pope; and what is it
those statutes have done? They have said, you shall
exercise your spiritual power without interruption,
as far as the spiritual power goes but we will
check you with reference to the temporal, more particu-
larly with reference to the temporalities attached to the
bishoprics, and the civil effect of your spiritual excommuni-
cation. No attempt was ever made to depy, as an incident
of spiritual power, the right of the Pope to appoint bishops.
But the statute more particularly says, if you shall appoint a
bishop, or translate a bishop without the consent of the
Crown, then the temporalities shall not follow your appoint -
ment. Further, without denying the spiritual effect of your
excommunications, we will tell you our -courts of law shall
not be subsidiary to giving any civil effectto your excommu-
nication.—(Hear, hear.)—The appointment of bishops is an
incident of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and the ter-
ritorial division of this country to give (elect to those ap-
pointment of bishops is a necessary and inevitable conse-
quence.—(Hear, hear.) The statute of Richard 11. sought
to confine the spiritual power within narrow limits, but left
the utmost latitude to the Crown and the courts of law with
respect to the:civil rights. This statute of Richard 11. is a
remarkable statute. It is not a dead letter. It was framed
in Catholic times, when the Catholic religion was in the
plenitude of its p .wer. In the reign of Henry VIII. Cardinal
Wolsey was indicted under that statute, and was convicted
by the Star Chamber. But since the Reformation has that
statute been a dead letter? In Ireland, in the reign of
James 1., so late as the year 1608, one Lalor, a vicar
apostolic, who exercised legantine power in Ulster, and
exceeded his authority, and trenched on the temporal
power, was indicted before a jury in Ireland, under the sta-
tute of Richard, and was convicted. Now, the Solicitor-
General put to us pointedly this
_question. e says,—" I
want an answer to this question—Has the Roman Pontiff in
partitioning the realm of England into provinces and dio-
c sea, and establishing therein archbishops and bishops, and
organizing a hierarchy for the government thereof, invaded
the prerogative of the Crown, outraged the independence of
the country ; had those of her Majesty's subjects who had
lent themselves to the carrying out of this great scheme, and
stood by and abetted him, departed
- from that undiviled al-
legiance they owe to their Sovereign, violated the law of the
land, and infringed the spirit of the Constitution?" Now,
if they bad trenched on the prerogative of the Crown—if
they had violated the law of the land-if they had touched
the regality—if they had entrenched on the realm of Eng-
land, then I say the statute of Richard 11. most unequivo-
cally applies.—(Cheers.) Our Roman Catholic ancestors de.
fended the regality of the Crown—(gear, hear)—and de-
fended the rights and liberties of the subject • and they did
provide remedies in those times which were found ade-
quate, and which, since Reformation,
the in Ireland, by
the verdict of a jury, have been Made applicable. But
the languageis remarkable in which the law officers
of the Crown assigned their reasons for preferring the
indictment under the statute of Richard in preference to
having recourse to the penal statutes of Elizabeth. The
preamble of the statute of Richard is in these words :
" They, and all the liege commons of
the realm, will stand
with our Lord the hang, his .said crown and his regality,
in all casesattempted against him, his crown and regality,
in all points to live and to die. Prcernunire for purchasing
or pursuing bulls, &c., from Rome,
against him, his crown,. his regality, or his realm." Now
se
the subject-matter of inquiry taylaleh touch the K ng,
that ought to go to
a jury. It is for a jury to decide
whether what has
been done touches the regality, touches the Crown, or
touches the realm.- (Loud cheers.)
Now, what were the
reasons assigned by the law officers of the Crown on the
trial of Lalor for preferring the statute of Richard instead
of the statute of Elizabeth? They said...." 1, We made
choice to proceed. upon a law made !more than 200 years
past, when the hang, the Lords, and Co:nmona, which made
the most part follow the same i opinions in religion which
theae laws,
r ettaught
htthean judges, d gheesl,dw ic h
in
theinterpret
Court of Rome. 2.
These laws were made to uphold and maintain
the sovereignty of the Ring, the liberty of the people, the
common law, and the commonweal, which otherwise had been
undermined and utterly ruined by the
usurpation of the
Bishop of Rome. For the Commons of England may be an
example unto all other subjects in the world in this, that
they have ever been tender and sensible of the wrongs offered
unto their kings, and have ever contended to uphold and
maintain their honour and sovereignty- Their faith and
loyalty have generally.' been such, as no pretence of zeal er
religion could ever withdraw the greater part of the subjects
to submit themselves to a foreign yoke-ono, not when Po-
pery was in her height and exultation ; whereof this Act
(16th of Richard II.), and divep others of the same kind,
are clear and manifest testimonres." -(Cheers.) Now, Sir,
I contend, to defend the sovereignty of the Crown, no new
laws whatever are necessary. - (Cheers.) If that sove-
reignty has been invaded, you have the ancient laws, the
unexceptionable law, to which you may apply and bring
your case before a jury ; but if you seek to put down, directly
or indirectly, the spiritual supremacy of the Court of Rome
over the Roman Catholic population of England, then, in-
deed, you must embark in a fearful contest.—(Loud
cheers.) You must embark in that contest which disgraced
England by shedding the precious blood of More, which
has for centuries disturbed England, ruined Ireland, and
inflicted indelible disgrace on this unhapy realm.—(Loud
cheers.) The incident of the spiritual part of the supremacy
is the right a appointing bishops to spiritual jurisdiction,
and the division of this country into districts for the more
perfect exercise of that spiritual power has also, at least
in Ireland, been co-extensive with the exercise of the
right itself, and both the
cod
law and the canon of Eng-
land have always required that it should be limited by
places. Now, the Bishop of Rome Claims
as of right, that
he is the Bishop of England, and is this a dormant right?
It is only directly as delegates from the Bishop of Rome,
that vicars apostolic have ever exercised any power. - (Hear.)
You are jealous of the direct inietfereuce
of the spiritual
power of a foreign prince. Your object would naturally be
to remove the subjects of her Majesty
from that direct in-
fluence of the sPope. Now the vicars apostolic are the
creatures of his will and the subjects of his caprice, and
from the vicars apostolic where is the appeal now ? It
.
lies only to the Pope of Rome person ; and
when you appeal from the vicars apostolic, the Pope is not
bound by the ennbn law, but may exercise his caprice in any
way whatsoever.---(Hear.) In Ireland the Pope can exercise
no such power; and now, with regard to the bishops,
why the Pope in the very year of the Revolution (If 88) di-
vided England into four districts; and again, in 1840, he
added four other districts.—(pear, hear.)
What took place
in 1812 ? Did you not desire that the powers of vicars
apostolic should cease, and an organised hierarchy be estab-
lished in England as in Ireland ? Why, sir, in 1812, Sir John
Cox Hippisley, on the part of the British Government (the
Pope then being under the immediate domination of Napo-
leon, our great enemy) stated that the British Government
desired the people of England should thus be emancipated
in one degree, from the direct control of the Pope —(Hear,
hear)—and Sir John Cox Hippisley was employed by the
British Government to propose to the Pope that the vicars
apostolic should no longer exist, but that a regular organised
hierarchy should be established in England.—(Cheers and
loud cries of " Hear, hear.") For reasons which, very
likely, were not at all favourable to England, the Pope de-
clined the proposition, preferring to . keep the power more
completely in his hands through the vicars apostolic—( Hear,
hear)—so he refused to comply with the suggestion of
the British Government, under which a hierarchy might
have been established in England as in Ireland.—(Hear.)
Sir, I would now say a word as to my Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Oxford, of whom, however, I should be sorry to say
anything severe. He asked the other night, "Is it not mon-
strous that a foreign prince, such as the Pope, should exer-
cise a discretionary power as to what shall be the organisa-
tion of a hierarchy in this country ? '
Sir, with all submits-

sion to my Hon. Friend, if the spiritual head of the Roman
Catholic Church were to exercise that power, I know not in
what hands it can be vested.— ( Hear, hear.) It is not denied
that it is, and may be an aggressive religion. My Noble
Friend (Lord Ashley) did not the other night deny that the
Catholic religion, on a fair level, had the right of endeavour-
ing to diffuse its doctrines, which are not only tolerated, but
of which the free exercise is guaranteed by legislation in this
country.—(Hear, hear.) But on the other hand, if it may
be an aggressive religion, surely it is, at all events, entitled
to be a defensive religion ; and there may be a disposition to
make proselytes from it ; and is it then extraordinary that
the spiritual heads of the Church, who have a special
care and a special charge as to the providing for the
spiritual welfare of their Church, should be the persons to
exercise this discretionary power?—(Cries of " Hear.")
But then it is said that an incidental effect of establishing
this hierarchy will be to introduce the canon law. My an-
swer is, that in Ireland they have had that canon law for
hundreds of years, and I am not aware that, amidst all the
evils and sorrows of that unhappy country, any particular
importance has been attached to the canon law.—(Hear.)
Then, my Honourable Friend (Mr. P. Wood) put in another
proposition, that more surprised me still, that we, as the
main and Protestant Legislature, should provide for some
supposed and contingent evils which might arise to lay
members of the Catholic Church from the operation of the
canon law, as affecting them ; and he gave us the maxim
si cutere tun ut non alienum lcedas —but he knows there is
another legal maxim rolenti non fit injuria.—( Hear, hear. )
What injury can there arise to laymen from the canon law?
Their obedience to it is voluntary; and the moment they
feel aggrieved by it they have only to withhold their obe-
dience to it.— ( Hear, hear.) This canon law is not recog-
nized by the law of England.— (Cries of " Hear, hear.") In-
cidentally, indeed, in reference to trusts, the courts of equity
come across it ; and I am informed that the principle they
then apply to it is this—Does it Arench on our law ? does
it violate any statute? - is it at variance with the common
law ? - or, is it opposed to any rule of equity? If it be,
then away with it I we have nothing to do with it. Buti fit do
not violate any of these principles, then we apply ourselves
to it in connexion with that which we consider the
will of the testator. This is the s) stem which we have
been following for years in Ireland, and no evil has ever
arisen from it.—(Hear, hear.) And therefore why there
should bs all this horror of the canon law in England, I
cannot conceive.—(Hear, hear.) Sit, I would have gladly
here have dropped all further reference to the speech of the
Honourable Member for Oxford, but there was one observe-

tion of his which grieved me exceedingly, for anything
falling from him injurious to civil and religious liberty must,
considering his known attachment to it, be of great con-
sequence. He will allow me to say I remember his
venerable father. at whose side I fought in the great battle
of emancipation, in 1829. And I was therefore the more
astonished and grieved to hear those observations from
his lips. He told us that the Church of Rome was un-
changeable, and that, being unchangeable, her doctrines
were still as likely to be enforced as ever, and that they
might be carried to the extent of even occasionally de-
throning sovereigns, or relieving subjects and soldiers
from their oaths of allegiance! Why, Sir, these are the
battered remnants of the old arguments which I thought
had been cast aside as filthy rags.—(Lwd cheers, and
cries of " Hear, hear.) When, in 1829. we consented to
admit Catholics to perfect equality of civil rights and power
we were culpable beyond measure in coming to that conclu-
sion if we believe one word of all this - (Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")—or thought that their allegiance was tainted,
and of that dangerous description which the Honourable
Member implied.—( Hear, hear.) But now, eir, as to these
territorial divisions. Have we no authority on the subject?
—authorities why we should consider them more harmless
than they are represented ? Let me bring under the notice
of the House what a prelate of the English Church says of
them. Sir, I have sewn with regret many of the addresses
of the prelates of the English Church amidst the excitement
of this period.—(Hear, hear.) I hold, however, in my hand
a most honourable exception—an address from the Bishop of
Norwich to his clergy. I quote him with the utmost plea-
sure, because I cordially respect his character, and think
that such sentiments, proceeding from him, are worthy of the
highest commendation.—(Hear, hear.) He says, speaking
of this Papal aggression, " this measure, apart from the man-
ner in which it has been attempted, and the language which
has been held officially and unofficially, and in certain well-
known principles of ttomanism which give significancy to
what has been done—the measure itself is nothing of which
we have any right to complain consistently with our tolera-
tion of Romanism. An episcopal Church is not tolerated if
we interfere with its liberty to appoint bishops, to determine
their number and rank, and to bestow upon them any titles
provided they do not infringe on any existing rights (the
very expression used in the Act of 1829, of which he calls
for no extension at all). It might naturally have produced
more of amazement than indignation to hear a functionary
of Rome declare that he governs counties of England as
ordinary thereof. Some territorial division, however, is ne-
cessary for every community of Christians in an episcopal
Church, and the term for a bishop's district is diocese."—
(Loud cheers and cries of " Hear, hear.") That is high
clerical authority; the opinion of one of the most eminent
prelates of our Church, and it is against this Bill.— (Hear.)
Have we no high lay authority ? I turn at once to the
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.—(Hears hear.) Has he not
recognised these territorial divisions? Has he not recog-
nised them most remarkably? I blame him not, because I
think the views which led him to write the letter I am
about to read were quite consistent with his duty, and
in accordance with that policy which was transmitted to
him by his predecessors, and which he has most honour-
ably and faithfully carried out.—(Hear, hear.) But I
think= somewhat imprudently he entrusted to Bishop
Nicholson a letter which was to be communicated to the Pope
at Rome; and in that letter what are the terms in which he
speaks of those territorial ,divisions? He had submitted to
the bishops certain new regulations for ,the government of
the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and had hoped to have been
able by these regulations to remove the Papal objections to
these colleges. What are the provisions he had made for the
purpose of giving some influence to the hierarchy in Ireland
in the government of the colleges? He says—" The list of
visitors has not yet been settled, but I can haveno hesitation
in saying that it will include the Catholic archbishop of the
province and bishop of the diocese in which the college is
situated. As I entertain a profound veneration for the cha-
racter of the Pope, and implicitly rely on his upright judg.
inent, it gives me great pleasure now to ask your Grace
to, submit these statutes to the consideration of his Holiness,
believing, as I do, it may be advantageously compared with
those of any similar institution in Europe." Here is a dis-
tinct recognition of these territorial divisions, " province"
and " dioceso."—(Hear.) Thus then I have cited an autho-
rity fom a prelate of the Established Church, and from the
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in favour of these territorial di-
visions.—(Hear.) Have I no other authority? What did the
Prime Minister say in 1848? The very question of the letter
to which I have referred was brought under the notice of the
House by Sir Robert Inglis; and it is right I should remind
the House that at that time a question had also arisen whe-
ther there was not an intention at Rome to appoint Or. Wise-
man Archbishop of Westminster; and the question was asked
by my Hon. Friend upon that point. The Noble Lord had
denied all knowledge of any such intention, and said it his
consent were asked to that, he was not prepared to give P.
But as to those territorial divisions of England, I really do not
think any opinions can be stated so clealy on this subject
as in the words of the Noble Lord himself, which I am about
to read, representing as they do my own opinions exactly.
With regard to spiritual air hority, whatever control is to be
obtained over the spiritual authority of the Pope, can only
be obtained by agreement for that end. You must give cer-
tain advantages to the Catholics, and then obtain from the
Pope certain advantages in return. Among which we may
stipulate that the Pope should not create any new dioceses
without the consent of the Queen. But, unless you have
an agreement, you are not in a position to have any such
advantage.—(Near, hear) You may say you will have
lothing to do v ith any arrangement of that kind, nor give
any authority to the Catholic religion in England. But then
you must leave the spiritual authority of the Pope utterly
unfettered.—(Hear.) You cannot bind the Pope's spiritual
influence unless you have some agreemen'. Although you
may prevent any spiritual authority from being exercised by
the Pope, by law, there is no provision, no law my Hon.
Friend could frame which would deprive the Pope of that in-
flsence which is exercised over the minds of the Catholics.
It is obvious that you cannot by any means prevent him
from communicating with the -Catholics of this country.
You may try to prevent such communications from being
opened ; but I think it would be very foolish if you took any
means of vigour or energy to effect that purpose.—(Hear,
hear.) If such communication be not open, it will be secret;
and so long as there are Catholics in this country—and so
long as they acknowledge the Pope as the head of their
Church—you cannot prevent his having spiritual influ-
ence over those who belong to his Church.—(Loud cries
of " Hear, hear.") Sir, I could not possibly express my
own opinions be'ter than in the words of the Noble Lord.
Within five days of the period when the Noble Lord
exp eased these opinions, the Attorney-General had to dis-
cus; the same question on a measure which had come before
the House, The Hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Pearson)
had proposed to limit the proposed diplomatic relations with
Rome, by inserting the words " touching and concerning
international relations." The Solicitor-General opp,..sed
the introduction of these words on the ground that " if
those words were inserted in the Bill, in cases where there
was the least ingredient of a ssiritual character it would be
injurious. Questions of a mixed character might arise,
though in the result they were of a temporal nature, and
in such no interference could take place. Suppose the
Pope introduced any regulation as to the Roman Catholics
of Canada, this qualification would prevent any interfer-
cues." Where, then, is the assault on the regality—where
is the attack on the rights and liberties of the subject—where
the attack on the prerogatives of royalty ?—(Cheers.) "As
the law now stands, the Pope may divide the country
into bi hoprics and archbishoprics—(Laughter)—and if
the amendment were agreed to he might do so still; but if
we had free diplomatic relations with him, the British Go-
vernment might interfere to prevent such a division."
(Cheers and laughter.) I have already told you it is doubt-
ful whether, by imputation at least, the first clause does not
carry fully into effect what in terms is enacted by the second
and third clauses. There is high legal authority for saying
that it does. - (Hear, hear.) I have already put it to you
that if that be so the Government must withdraw their Bill.
But take it that it is not so - is this a question in relation to
its effect upon the social condition of Ireland that can be left
in doubt ? (Loud cheers from the Irish Members.) I have
pe-mission to read to the House a letter of Archbishop Mur-
ray's, which I will do. See if you should chance to make a
mistake what may be the effect on the whole social frame-
work of Irish society, so far as seven-eighths of the whole
population are concerned ? Archbishop Murray says :
" Dublin, March 3, 1851.—Our Church is essentially
episcopal. Our sacred ministry could not be carried on
without priests, we could have no priests without
bishops, and no bishops but through the authority
of the Pope. It is his business not only to name
our bishops, but to point out the limits within which this
jurisdiction is to be circumscribed. The portion or surface
which contains the Catholic flock within those limits may be
called a district, or a see, or a bishopric, and the individual
appointed to ordain priests, and to carry on the other neces-
sary functions of the ministry therein, may be a vicar-
apostolic or a bishop in ordinary, with this difference, that
the former is removable at pleasure, the latter is permanent,
and therefore one step removed from the immediate action of
Papal influence. Except as Archbishop of Dublin I could
not ordain one of my priests. I could net give a parish, I
could not communicate with the Pope, I could net correspond
with foreign bishops, I could not give letters dimissory, or
ordination letters, or letters testimonial. I have laid my
hand on an old letter of ordination, which was not for-
warded to the individual for whom it was intended. It
was written in 1828. Were I to issue that letter now I
should be liable to a fine of 1001. Though in many in-
stances we were obliged to act in disobedience to this un-
just law, we knew that Government was not disposed to
act harshly towards us. The spirit which has suggested
t
the proposed law seems to be very different. From u first
view ieeefpowerneodfa
oc
court
uu
suchrste 2
of
ail tmi
agshat
documentl ba ye mainferred
:Inleoteashireiit
ea
be weredg nw vinvalid
;rieisnrt,hididaor
w
performed might, on that ground,
2 ,discontentedewithoutn a
tnetaotthw imputation
trueugh it is thw
clause at
and
nt
edatyrkiee,
the
,utG:rdochhvel
iiarsemsur
clause
rsfdeet
angattannrhdoallttoaht
rv(e er
clause
con-
sented eief
proposi-
tion is to be resisted; but
MY view be correct, all the evil consequences pointed out by

Archbishop Murray will result even if you pass the Bill in its
amended form.—;Hear.) The Solicitor General now declares
that there has been an invasion of the prerogative of the
Crown and liberty of the subject.—(Hear, hear.) I answer
if what has been done is illegal why do you not appeal to the
courts of law ?—(Cheers.) With respect to the division
of the country into districts, we have seen for a long
time past arrangements made fur ordaining priests and
exercising spiritual jurisdiction by vicars-apostolic in
this country, and by a hierarchy in Ireland.—(Hear,
hear.) I am not aware that these territorial divisions
confer any temporal power. Since nonconformity has
ceased to be illegal, and Anglican bishops of our own
Church no longer exercise power over the whole of the in-
habitants of their district, but over such only as are within
the pale of their own Church—there is no jealousy of episco-
pal interference on the part of nonconformists.— (Hear.)
My Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the city of
Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) has let out the real truth. It is that
there is a Roman Catholic bishop's throne established side by
side with the throne of the Anglican bishop.—(Hear, hear.)
That is the real reason of all this special anger.—(Hear,
hear.) And you say, besides, in enumerating your objec-
tions. that there is something f a foreign influence govern-
ing this Roman Catholic Church. Now that has been dis-
cussed often and often before.—(Hear, hea-.) It was
weighed well in the balance and found wanting, when we
were passing the Emancipation Act.—(Cheers.) If, then,
you question the political tendencies of the Roman Catholic
Church, and should come to a decision this night on the
grounds that the Church of England is in danger, I say ycu
are undertaking legislation which will neither ;satisfy that
doubt nor remove that danger. For if you commence
thus, you must go further. You must reverse the principles
of the Toleration Act, you must repeal the Emancipation Act
itself, and then. 1 warn them, let the Dissenters of England
look to themselves.—(Cheers.) You must legislate, if you
legislate at all, with that spirit, with that object, and with
that motive.—(Cheers.) But something is said vaguely
about synods. We are told that there is great danger from
synods, and that, if we are wise, the synodical action of
the prelacy will be put an end to. Now, allow me to ask,
are you quite clear, here, as to your interference? Since
the legal and constitutional right of public meeting exists in
Great Britain and Ireland, show me how you can prevent
substantially the meeting of the hierarchy being organized,
considering the spiritual character and power which would
always surround such an assembly, with all the effect of in-
fluencing, to the utmost possible extent, the conduct of those
who are the members of that church.—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.") My Noble Friend complained of the Synod
of Thurles, that it had interfered with the question of land-
lord and tenant, and that it had condemned the Irish col-
leges. I regret that this was so. Obviously no person
here can feel a more lively interest in the success of these
colleges than I do. But I say—and this was suggested in
the admirable speech of my Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) a speech
which I can but follow—that if there is to be any assem-
bling of the hierarchy of Ireland, and they are to discuss
any subject whatever, I can see none more germane to
their functions, none more legitimately falling within
their supervision, than this question—is the people of Ireland
to be educated in these colleges?— (Cheers.) But, then, the
Roman Catholic prelacy and the Roman Catholic clergy in-
tervene in regard to subjects of a temporal nature. Welt, an-
swering this, I may say I think 1 remember, during the
Anti-Corn-law agitation, a meeting at Manchester of the
Dissenting clergy— (Lend cheers)—convened from every
part of the United Kingdom. They came to resolutions at
this meeting which were very important resolutions. They
were returned to this convention from their respective dis-
trirts as the delegates of the views of their respective con-
gregations ; and their object was, in which they succceeded,
to use their utmost influence against the existing laws in
regard to the food of the people.—( Much cheering.) Then I
say that if clergymen are to meet, I am not prepared to le-
gislate for the purpose of imposing restrictions on their meet-
ing. I am satisfied that, it you are once embarked in this
course, you will be led step by step, whatever the Hon. and
Learned Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) may
contend to the contrary, until you have been induced to de-
stroy not only religious liberty, but civil liberty also.—
(Cheers.) Now, I have treated this Bill, hitherto, as a real
and formidable measure. But it has been changed, and it
stands much mutilated from its original proportions. When
my Noble Friend at the head of the Government rose, in in-
troducing this Bill, I listened to him with admiration, and
with that respect which his talents always command; and
as he proceeded, occupying such high ground, and laying
his foundations so deep, I certainly trembled for the result,
and shuddered as I imagined what was to follow the great
oration. I said to myself (tantane animis calestibus ire?)
how is this to end—is he about to propose the
repeal of the Act of Emancipation? Well, the speech was a
great speech ; the measure is comparatively small. Much
disappointment ensued, anger excited; and not many hours
had elapsed before the Attorney-General rose and assiduously
endeavoured to magnify the measure, and to show that it was
neither tolerant nor harmless, that it did strike at synodical
action, and that if it did not altogether destroy it, it did at
all events tend to intercept, the power of granting bequests
and beneficial interests in succession to the Roman Catholic
prelacy. In short, the Attorney-General made an elaborate
effort to demonstrate that it was generally a most formidable
Bill. After this, too much being proved, the Government
became horrified at the spectre they themselves had raised;
they saw the consequences of their creation, and they fled.
The Noble Lord, in justifying the retreat, said emphati-
cally, and said truly, and fortunate it is that there does
prevail in all cases this restriction upon statesmen—" When
I ask to prohibit what I wish to prohibit I am compelled
not to allow what I do not wish to disturb." That is a
true description of a difficulty; and it is one of my
principal reasons for objecting to legislation of this kind.
You are, no doubt, in a dilemma.—(Hear, hear.) If you
cut down your measure to a minimum, you run a great
danger; and though it may be supposed, it has been most
unjustly supposed, that I have any feeling towards Rome, I
say I should be ashamed to see the weighty legislative
power of this country brought dowa from its efficiency to
inefficiency, and laid prostrate at the feet of Rome. On the
other hand, if you seek to escape that, and to render your
measure effective, then, I contend, if you do not fail, you will
embark in a course of legislation which will be neither more
nor less than a struggle with the spiritual authority of Rome,
until, as I said before, step by step you will be led to the
very point you surrendered in 1829, and driven to the enact-
ment of a penal code with all its restrictions. This, there-
fore, is the dilemma; impotence on your part is disgraceful;
and vigour, in my opinion, is dangerous I say dangerous,
I distinctly; I can ill dissemble it. I think that danger, as it
relates to Ireland, is the danger of civil war. (Loud cries of
" Hear," and "No, no.") I cannot retract the words; and is
that an empty threat? Look back to 1829. A tried and
firm statesman, certainly the firmest man that, within
our days has been at the head of the Government of this
country, declared to the House of Lords deliberately that
he bad seen more war abroad than any man then living,
seen all its horrors and triumphed in all its excesses, that of
all wars what was most to be dreaded was civil war; and he
put the alternative to the House of Lords, either make this
concession or prepare for that hideous alternative of civil
war.— (Cheers.) That, after all, is the question still. But,
it is sai ?, the feelings of the people of England
have been outraged ; and the language used by the Pope
and by his servants has been offensive to English indepen-
dence. I will not here follow the Hon. Member for the
city of Dublin (Mr. J. Reynolds) into any artistic compa-
risc of the phrases used by the bishops of the Roman Ca-
tholic Church, with the bishops of the Anglican Church.
Assuredly the complaint as to the language used is some-
what superfluous. It is as if this were to happen—a parable
s .mewhat apposite :—A labourer accidentally jostles me
in the highway. I instantaneously turn round and
knock him down. I knock his hat off and
trample it under foot. I roll it in the gutter.
I bespatter him with mud. I set the boys on
to hoot him and to pelt him ; and, out of breath, with
anger and wit's exertion, I lastly call on the police, and give
him in charge for the offence he has committed against me.
We have had acrimonious language here to-night with re-
spect to the Roman Catholic Church, and Hon. Gentlemen
who rise and express themselves in the heat of debate, may
have their excuses. But the prelates of the English Church
have used language of which great complaint has been made
deliberately in addressing their respective clergy. I think
they ought to remember that that religion which they so de-
nounce is the religion, afar all, of a great maj rity of Chris-
tendom. Eminent prelates ought, at least, not to forget that
it is the religion which tempered the genius of Fenelon,
which warmed the eloquence of Massillon, which touched
with fire the tongue of Bossuet, and which inspired the
tolerant pen of Pascal.—(Cheers.) I trust that I am not
trespassing too far on the attention of the House.— (En-
csuraging cheers.) I speak at this length only because it is
necessary, in self-justification, to state freely and frankly all
th 3 reasons which have influenced me.—(Cheers.) Now,
Sir, it will be remembered that I was one of those who
wholly objected to the appropriation clause. I did so for
the reason that I did not think it was either right or desir-
able, or practically politic. had there been no other higher
considerations, to strip the Protestant Church of Ireland of
its property, merely with a view of endowing the Roman
Catholic Church. And I will say now, whatever may have
been the policy cf such an endowment at a former period,
that that opportunity has gone by.—(Hear.) You can be-
stow upon them, the people of Ireland, but slight advantages
in the shape of endowment of their clergy ; but just in pro-
portion as you cannot satisfy them in that respect, I think
the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, whether laity or
clergy, if this be a matter of feeling, if it be reduced to a
question of feeling between them and the people of England,
are entitled to very peculiar consideration. ( rho Right Hon.
Gentleman here proceeded to quote a passage from a letter of
Knox to Lord Castlereagh, which he described as equal,
in eloquence, to anything from Burke, descriptive of
the respective and relative positions of the Protestant
and Roman Catholic churches in Ireland. The Right Hon.
Gentleman spoke in so low a tone of voice while reading the
letter that we were only enabled to gather detached sen-
tences.) I believe that the Roman Catholic Church in Ire-
land, the " church of the vanquished," as described in the
letter I have quoted from, has a moral claim upon England,
and I have always held that, in the circumstances in which
they were placed, peculiar delicacy with respect to the peo-
ple of Ireland is at all events due from the Legislature of this
country.—(Cheers.) Now, as to the substance of the Bill. I
look first to the names on the back of it ; and am I better
satisfied with what I find here? ,What is the first name I
see? The name of Russell.—(Hear, hear.) Is this the Rus-
sell chosen by the city of London as the champion of reli-
gious liberty ? (Cheers and laughter.) The Russell, whose
name will go down to posterity as identified with the re-
peal of the Test and Corporation Act, and who, with well-
proved principles and still nobly daring, is even nsgi
striving to unrivet the last fetter of persecution which
hangs upon the Jews ?—(Cheers.) What is the next?Th.res
name of Grey. Who is he?—(Laughter and cheers.)
this the nephew of that patriotic Nobleman who sacrificed
the ambition of a life, and spent the flower of his
youth in
the defence of the great principles of
t he
H
civil and religious
claims of the
liberty, more especially in the assertion of
Roman Catholics?—(Lord cheers.) Theltig hltikeohni.mGeinnthlei-s
man is like him—like him in his eloquence,
sbrilliance; and sadly
suavity, like him, I might add, in
do I regret to see his nefimeoatotfh hießobssacekll oifstthhiserße—illt.h—e
(Hear, hear) The name,
invariable advocate of civil and religious liberty.—(Hear.)
fboerenthbato.tc hi‘eidy.
Besides this Bill is not
—(Great cheering.) d )flierr iesd a t reasonh
Right Hon. Friends on that bench opposite would not
be worthy of the name and charrter of the friends of
civil and religioud cher,my us libert
ia n f tdhe it y s
lwi ere
ows adepts in
tfra ofming
per-
penal laws ( Lo)
sonal ski'l in this class of legislation; and God forbid they
(Rene ever become expert and dexterous in such a craft.
(Renewed cheers.) My Noble Friend at the head of the
G ivernment, in a late speech, referred to his firmer allies,
friends, and compatriots— among them t i Grsttan—that
noble spirit fled to join with Fox, Canning, Wilberforce, and
I ask my Noble Friend, if in his conscience he really believes
that one of those men, who all cordially agreed in the prin-
ciple of the Emancipation Act afterwards passed, would have
approved of this Bill ?—(Great cheers.) And if my Noble
Friend can say he thinks they would have so approved- it,
then I appeal from the dead to the living. Would Plunket
have voted for that Bill ?—(Loud cheers.) Would Brougham
have voted for that Bill?—(Cheers renewed.) Does Den-
man, I ask, approve of this Bill?—(Loud cheers.) I would
he were here to answer that question.—(Cheer:.)
Then
there is the great historian of the revolutionary period, a man
deeply imbued with Protestant principles—l 59k, would
Macaulay approve of this Bill? I have tried it by the evi-