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

me of these acts, and said that it behoved the country tl
inquire whether the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
Mont, by the course he had pursued, and by exciting a feeling
of Protestants against Catholics, had not been playing into
the Pope's hands, and whether the whole conduct of the Go-
vernment on this occasion had not been lamentable and dis-
creditable.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, but was almost
immediately re-opened. Upon our re-admission,
Mr. KEOGH was addressing the House. The Noble Lord
at the head of the Government had not yet arrived at a
proper perception of the dangers with which this Bill threat-
. sued the empire, and especially Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Did
the Noble Lord intend to put this act in force oriaot in Ire-
land ? He professed that it was necessary, and that it was
his intention to put it in force in Ireland. He said, too,
that it was a similar Act to that of 1829, to which the
Roman Catholics of Ireland had submitted. But he told the
Noble Lord that it was a different Act from that of 1829,
and that the people of Ireland would not submit to it. In
1846 the Charitable Bequests Act passed, the effect of which
was to repeal the offensive provisions of the Act of 1829,
and to legalise that which was illegal before. He (Mr.
lieogh) maintained, that after the passing of that Bill it was
not illegal for the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops
to assume the titles prohibited by the Act of 1829, and that
the penalties of that Act could not be successfully enforced.
The Act of 1829 was a remedial measure, and the preamble
Purported to remove restraints and restrictions thaf had there.
tofore been imposed. But the preamble of the present Bill
' declared in street that the assumption of the prohibited
titles was inconsistent with the rights of the bishops and
archbishops of the Established Church. That recital was
Untrue. In the preamble of the present Bill it was stated,
and whereas it may be doubted whether the recited enact-
ment extends to the assumption of the title of archbishop or
bishop of a pretended province or diocese, &c." He asserted
that such a statement was not true, and that the allegation
which it was said might be doubted was not doubted. The
next assertion was, " that the attempt to establish under
colour of authority from the see of Rome or otherwise such
pretended sees, provinces, or dioceses, is illegal and void."
Ile (Mr. Keogh) denied that. The preamble then contained
three distinct falsehoods, for the next affirmation was. that
" the assumption of ecclesiastical titles in respect thereof is
inconsistent with the rights intended to be protected by the
said enactment." Lord J. Russell also knew that that was
not true, and he had told the House so. He (Mr. Keogh) de-
clared that one clause of the Bill contained everything
that the omitted clauses would, have enacted, and
this was not his opinion only, but the opinion of
Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Brodie, and Mr. Baddeley. The pre-
, sent Bill made no reference to the Charitable Bequests
Act. He bad warned the late Attorney-General (Sir J.
Bomilly) that the present Bill would repeal the Caritable
Bequests Act, and this opinion had been borne out by the
three eminent lawyers to whom be had just referred. The
Charitable Bequests Act provided that the voluntary endow-
tient of the Roman Catholic Church should be legal, but if
this Bill passed the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops
never could accept any endowment or emolument under the
Provisions 'of the Act of 1846. The first climate attached a
Penalty to any person who, not being authorised by law,
Should " assume or use the name, style -or title of archbishop,
bishop, or dean of any city, town, or Place, or of any terri-
tory or district (under any designation or description what-
soever) in the United Kingdom." Then how was a Roman
Catholic bishop to be described? He could not discover any
language that would lawildly. describe a Roman Catholic
'bishop if these words were left in the enactment.—(Cheers.)
The Noble Lord was playing fast and loose with the country
if he did not intend to put the Act in force, and, if he did,
be strangled the religious liberties of the Roman Catholic
Church. The Noble Lord said that Ireland had not coin.
Plaited of the prohibition of ecclesiastical titles by the
;Act of 1429. The reason was, because it had been all a
" sham." He did not want to see other public men left to
would out this Bill who might have as strong a desire (he
would not say a stronger desire) as the Noble Lord to restrict
the religious liberty, of the people of Ireland. It was no
"dream or hallucination to suppose that at some remote
Period during the next quarter of a century there might be
.another Administration in the country 'who might attempt
to put the Bill into force. He implored the Noble Lord to

withdraw the remaining section of his Bill. He did not
dispute what the Noble Lord had done for Ireland; but, if
this Bill passed, it would upset everything he had ever done,
and place the millions of Roman Catholics In Ireland in a
worse position than they were in before.— (Cheers.) The
Noble Lord said that the feelings of the people of England
Must be consulted. He admitted that the great majority of
the people of England were Protestant; but nine-tenths of
the people of Ireland were Catholic; and was it be-
coming in a great Minister to talk of coercing the
religious opinions of one section of the people to
satisfy the religious prejudices of the other ?—(Cheers.)
The Noble Lord had said, over and over again, that the
proceeding of the See of Rome was a direct insult to the
Protestant feeling of this country. Last Friday night 202
Members of that House were ready to vote for the motion of
the Hon. Member for Stafford. 'The form of that motion
Was that the act of the See of Rome had been encouraged by
the pr, ceedings of the Government, and that was the truth.
(Hear.) He believed it; he was ready to prove it; and he
Would give the House, before he sat down, greater evidence
than the Noble Lord dreamt of on the subject.—(Hear.)
He had before invited the Noble Lerd to a pleasing re
Miniscence of his own speeches in that House, and would
therefore not go over that ground even ; but, invited by
the minority of 202 Members of that House, who were
ready to vote that the proceedings of the Government had
,6,_ncouraged the act of the See of Rome, he 'would tell them
least"ley might most safely come to that conclusion without the
injustice to the Government. The Noble Lord was
afraid of that issue. He knew well there were many per-
sons who went with him into the Lobby who were of that
Opinion, and the Hon. Baronet the Member for the U.i-
versity of Oxford had distinctly stated on a former occasion,
that the conduct of the See of Rome had been encouraged
by the Government in Ireland. The Noble Lord knew
that if that were the issue tendered by the Hon. Member
for Stafford be would have been in a minority, and most
rightly.would be have been so. The Noble Lord in 1844.
1845, and 1846, when he was in opposition—
Lord J. RUSSELL —Not when I was in opposition in
1646.
- -

a kir. KEOGH—WeII then in 1844 and 1845, made cer-
le,,ia, observations on this subject; but in 1848 he said,
s will set everything right. I withdraw what I said
before. I apologise to tue country and the thing is settled
as it ought to nave been ;" and the Noble Lord said, in
answer to a question whether he would sanction the appoint-
ment of a British subject by the See of Rome to a bishopric
in this country with territorial jurisdiction, that he would
Lica consent to it. But in February, 1849, after Cardinal
~..Wiseman had been gazetted as Bishop of Westminster, the
Noble Lord said--
"But I own I do not think that this is a matter of very
treat importance. It was very agreeable to the feelings of
the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops that they
should be called by the titles by which they were usually
designated. They have received those titles; but that does
sot imply any legal claim to authority, and I cannot con-
ceive,. therefore, that it is necessary for tnis House to take
idly_proceedings in the matter."
''''( Hear, hear.) Perhaps his Learned Friends on the other
-side would give some explanation, or, as the lawyers said,
Would put in a special demurrer to what the Noble Lord
said ; but he found the Noble Lord's colleagues more impe-
tuous and more anxious that no doubt should remain on the
Mind of the See of Rome as to what it ought to do. On the
27th of July, 1849, he found that in the House of Lords,
Lord Redesdale put a question to Earl Grey, and that Noble
Lord declining to answer, a colleague sitting beside him
thought he was acting injudiciously, and said that if any
cardinal came over to this country, everyone would call him
" his Eminence." The Noble Lord who gave that answer
less the Earl of Canine; and yet in face of those assertions
the Noble Lord spoke of the insult of the See of Rome, when
reading those declarations in the Houses of Parliament, it
anointed a bishop to preside boar the spiritual interests of
Roman Catholics in this country.—(Hear.) It happened
that he (Mr. Keogh) was at Rome when all this mischief
occurred ; but a remarkable fact came to his notice there,
and he did not know whether the Noble Lord the Foreigu
Secretary was in his place, but, if so, he had no doubt the
Noble Lord was aware of the fact. Cardinal Wiseman was
created Archbishop of Westminster, and directly the matter
was published it was a subject of great rejoicing in Rome. Now
this country had a diplomatic representative at Rome. We
had a Consul located there ; and over the doors of his man-
sion were placed the British arms. He (Mr. Keogh) saw
the dwelling of the British consulate brilliantly illuminated
in honour of the appointment.—(Hear, hear.) Was the See
of Rome, then, to be under the impression that nothing would
be so distasteful to the 'British Government as that appoint-
ment for which the British consul had Illuminated his man-
sion ? The Noble Lord had made a great deal of the subject
of synod in Ireland; he said that all might have gone quietly
but for that Synod of Thurles, which interfered with internal
affairs. The Noble Lord said the Catholics of Ireland had de-
ceived him, but they had only returned a comp'iment. The
Noble Lord when he came to deal with the Protestant eccle-
siastiet in Ireland by no means objected to their interference
in the most violent manner with their flocks on the same
temporal questions which he accusea the Roman Catholic
bishops of improperly interfering with. The Noble Lord
Would recollect that in 1832, 17 out of 20 Protestant bishops
in Ireland, for they had' 0 then, and 1,700 Protestant clergy,
protested against the system of national education.—(Hear.)
And the Noble Lord who led the party on his side of the
House, supported by the Noble Lord opposite, said those
right rev. prelates and those members of the clergy had a
right to say that, disapproving of the system, they would
not allow the attendance at the schools of the children of
their flocks. It was perfectly competent for clergymen of
the Established Church to say that, but it was not
competent to the Catholic clergy to say they would not
disallow, but that they would not recommend their flocks
to semi-their childten to the mixed schools of education in
Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) Then the
noble Lord spoke of the
h uprrcehs
Presbyterian
tSe
rc
ioat-
h
synod, and was enormously cheered, as if it had been a
monster that had never before been heard of. But there was
the Synod of Ulster,—of the
oPfretshbyeteurinainteCd
Scot-
land; there was the Synod
Church Synod—(A laugh)—and there was the Synod of
United Original Seceders. He must tell the Noble Lord that
since his famous Durham letter no ono would venture to
say that the Catholic people of Ireland ought to send their
children to those seminaries.—(Hear.) But, said the Noble
Lord, there was a case in Sardinia. He thought it would have
been more apposite and cogent with the Roman Catholics in
Ireland, since the Reformation, if the Noble Lord could have
said there was a case there in which religious independence
Was stifled by the hierarchy instead of travelling beyond the
Alps. But, in sober seriousners, he said that this was the
Worst part of the Bill. The cloven foot came out inthat
part of the Bill to which he had alluded more than in all
the letters and speeches of the Noble Lord and his colleagues.
If there should be a question as to the religious liberty of the
Episcopal Church of Scotland, no one would be more happy
than he would be to insert a clause in the Bill to preserve
it; but could it have escaped the Noble Lord, when he was
hurling his invectives against the Roman Catholic religion
in Ireland, against those sacred ceremonies which its mem-
bers revered, when talking of the Synol of Thurles, that he
had a case in Scotland much stronger Than any he could
have thought of in Ireland? What would the [louse say of
excommunication in the orthodox Episcopal Church of
Scotland. There was, however, a remarkable case of that
kind before the Courts of Scotland ; but in favour of the
Synod and the establishment from which it had emanated
the Noble- Lord was willing to insert provisions to exempt
it from the operation of the Bill, which was aimed altogether
with sectarian bigotry against the Roman Catholics.—
( Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet the Home
Secretary once contradicted him for saying he had
received a petition signed by the bishops of the Episcopal
Church of Scotland, but, if it were not the petition of the
episcopal bishops, it was a petition of the Society of Christian
Knowledge, signed by those episcopal bishops —( Hear, bear)—
and that petition was received, although the Noble Lord said
he would not receive a petition so signed by the Roman
Catholic bishops of Ireland. But, he won't' read the terms
of the excommunication in the case in ,Scotland to which he
had referred :—" We, William Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen
aforesaid, with our clergy in synod assembled, do hereby this
10th day of May, 1843, excommunicate the said Sir William
Dunbar, Bart., and solemnly warn all the faithful to hold no
communion with him in prayers or sacraments." Had that
escaped, the attention of the Noble Lord? Was he aware of
the existence of that excommunication when he proposed to
Introduce an exceptional clause for Scotland in the Bill before 1