The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-07 00:00:00

LONDON, §ATURDAy EVENING, JUNE 7, 1851.

plaint of breach of faith; and they used language at
public meetings, composed partly of magistrates, sheriffs,
and municipal authorities, to this effect. In reference to
Van Diemen's Land, they said that the system of send-
ing convicts there would have ceased long ago if they
had prevented them in the first instance from Modif,.
When they were strong enough they ought to rely role&
upon their own strength, for it was only by their weak-
ness that the resolutions of the Government were carried
out; that there could be no doubt the best way of ge:tiog
rid of the convicts was to prevent their landing. Here
it appears there wore three cheers given at the meeting,
Lad throe more immediately after the first had been duly
responded to. The speaker further said it was idle to peti-
tion any more on the subject—let us take the law into our
own hands, and defeat the plans of the Government, as the
Cape folks had done. He (Lord Monteagle) raid it
would not do to let this question sleep, or to believe it
possible that it could rest where it was at present. Un-
less the Government adopted a new system altogether
in respect to these convicts they must be prepared to
encounter a most formidable resistance from the colo-
r nuts. He believed that if they adopted that principle
upon which they had acted many years they would be
able to reconcile the colonists to their system—a system
which was based upon the moral welfare of the convicts,
as well as upon the best interests of the colonists them-
selves. They ought to make the labour of these con-
victs profitable to the colony. He had done his duty by
laying the petition before them, and ho might mention
that whilst only 525 signatures could be procured in fa-
vour of transportation in the colony, 36,000 had been
obtained against it.
Earl GREY said he had had no opportunity of read-
ing the petition in question, and not having done so he
was not prepared for the speech of his Noble Friend
He had expected that his Noble Friend would have con-
fined eiee;elf to the prayer of the petition; but he found
that his Noble Friend did not concur in it. By the Act
of last year it was provided, that upon the petition of
the inhabitants of tho northern part of New South
Wales, that northern portion should bo formed into a
district colony. A few days ago a petition was received
from the governor, signed, ho believed, by nearly all the
resident landowners in that district, praying the Crown
to exercise that power and divide the colony, and also to
give that part of the colony the advantage of convict
labour; and he observed by a newspaper report that one
of the grounds upon which they asked this was, that
they were contributing very largely to the revenue of
the whole colony, while the legislature at Sydney en-
tirely neglected their interests, and refused them the ad-
vantage of the police, which they absolutely required
for their protection and safety, in order to present col-
lisions with the aborigines. It was the complaint of
Victoria over again. The real object of the petition pre-
sented by his Noble Friend was to prevent that power
of dividing the colony from being exercised, and to
prevent the sheep farmers of Northern Australia from
availing themselves of convict labour, which they
found so greatly to their interest to do. Ho was happy
to hear that his Noble Friend did not concur in the
prayer of the petition. The governor in sending it over
stated that ho had only just received it, and had not had
time to accompany it with the information which he
thought necessary to enable the Government properly to
consider it, and he requested the home Government to
take no step upon it until further information should be
sent home. Such a message from Sir C. Fitzroy was
conclusive, and nothing would be done in the matter
until further official information had been received. He
certainly was not prepared to say that the power of Par-
liament ought to be exercised in deference to the com-
plaints of these colonist., unless they had been shown to
be well founded, nor could he admit that because Sydney
did not require convict labour the rest of the colony
should be deprived of the advantages to be derived from.
it. While he thought they must continue to send con-
victs to thole colonies, he held it to bo the bounden
and solemn duty of the Government and Par-
liament to take all measures in their power
fur making it as advantageous as possible to the
colony to receive them. What his Noble Friend had
stated with respect to convict labour was perfectly
just; but he was surprised that ho should have
forgotten that these principles had been laid down
over and over again in the dispatches sent to Sir W.
helieon. Public improvements were in progress which
he believed would, at no very distant period, alter very
materially the views of the colonists with respect to this
question. On the last arrival of a convict-ship at Ho-
bart Town, he understood that 100 ticket-of-leave men
were hired before landing, and he, therefore, trusted that
the case was not quite so bad as his Noble Friend
imagined. He would not further occupy the House,
having so fully entered into the question on a late oc•
casion.

tirement of admirals. After the naval estimates he pro-
I posed to take a vote for the expenses of the Kafir war, and
I he proposed also on Thursday and Friday to take the mis-
cellaneous estimates. He had already given notice that
on the Monday following he intended to go on with the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, but in order to give time for
the return of Irith Members after the recess, ho
shodld propose to take the second reading of
the Customs Bill and of the Window Tax
Repeal Bill, and then to o on with the miscellaneous
estimates. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill he should take
on the Friday following, which would be that day fort-
night, and then he proposed to go on with that Bill until
it had been disposed of.

Mr. EWART wished toEDUCATION ask the First Lord of the
Treasury, whether her Majesty's Government are
willing to cause to be made, through a Minister of the
Crown, on going into the education estimates, a
statement of the condition and progress of edu-
cation, so far as it comes under the administration of the
Government, and within the supplies voted by Parlia-
ment; including national institutions connected with art
or science, training schools, schools of design, üblic
libraries, and similar institutions, conformably with the
promise made by the late Sir Robert Peel during his 4
administration?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no knowledge of any
promise made by Sir Robert Peel on this subject. Ile
would, hoe/ever, consider whether any further statement
could be made in addition to that usually laid before the
House; but he thought it would be indiscreet to make
such a general statement as that proposed by his Hon.
Friend.
Mr. HUME could vouch for the accuracy of what had
fallen from his Hon. Friend. Sir R. Peel distinctly
made the promise, and declared that in future it would
be the duty of the Government to make a similar report
on the subject of the educational grants to that made upon
the vote for the British Museum. Nothing could be more
satisfactory to the public than that such a report should
be made.
Mr. CARDWELL said if he remembered rightly it
was not to be a report but a statement from a member
of th© Cabinet of the grants that had been disposed of,
and the intentions of Government for the future.
Mr. LA BOUCHERE said the minutes of the Council
of Education were annually laid before the House, which
would show the disposal of the grant.
Mr. MO WATT said these minutes were not intelli-
gible to ninety-nine out of a hundred persons.
TREATMENT OF PAUPERS IN IRELAND.
Mr. REYNOLDS again re-called the attention of the
House to the manner which the poor were treated in
various of the Irish workhouses. On the 11th of April
he moved for certain returns to found a motion on the sub-
ject, but the Irish poor-law authorities, alarmed lest the
real state of affairs should come to light, had weglected
to make the return. The treatment which the Irish pau-
pers had received in these workhouses threw the attro-
cities that were practised upon Jane Wilbred into the
shade, and he strongly suspected that the Commissioners
wished to delay making their returns until it should be
too late for him to bring on his motion.
Sir G. GREY said it was impossible for the returns
in question to be ready within the time.
NEW CONVENT IN BIRMINGHAM.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD rose to ask Sir George Grey
whether he had received any communication from the
Mayor of Birmingham, relative to the erection, now in
progress, of a large convent within that borough?
Sir G. GREY answered that he had not received any
communication from any quarter on the subject.
Mr. SPOONER rose to explain. It was evident that
the question was put with reference to a statement which
he had made in the House on the debate on the Reli-
gious Houses Bill. Now, although Mr. Newman had
written a letter to the Morning Chronicle attempting to
explaiu that these underground cells were meant for
baking, brewing, and other domestic purposes, yet he
himself had received a letter from a gentleman in Bir-
mingham who had inspected the building in the course
of erection, who informed him they were too numerous
to be meant for any such purposes, and more then that,
they were not furnished with any menus of obtaining
light externally.
Mr. MOORE would only say that he was glad the
Ilononrable Member had so completely shown his own
absurdity on this subject, and he thought it was quite
impossible for anybody to make him more ridiculous
than he had made himselF.—(Cries of " Order.")
VENEZUELA.
Mr. DISRAELI gave not ce that he should on this
day week present a petition from Mr. Wall, a British
merchant of the Carraccas, complaining of injuries suf-
fered by him from the Venezuelan Government.
KAFIR WAR.
Mr. ADDERLEY wished to know whether, as there
were so many notices of motion for Thursday next, the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government would have
any objection to postpone the motion respecting the
Kafir war until Thursday ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said if that motion could not
come on till a late hour, he should certainly postpone it.
The motion that the House at its rising should adjourn
until Thursday next was then agreed to.
SMITHFIELD MARKET.
Mr. CARDWELL brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Smithfield Market Removal Bill.
FISHERIES.
Mr. ANDERSON gave notice that on an early day
after the holidays he should call the attention of the
House to the objects, duties, and proceedings of the
Board of Fisheries.
I NCUMBER ED ESTATES.
Mr. MORGAN JOH N O'CONNELL moved for a
copy of any statement addressed to the Chief Secretary
of Ireland from the Commissioners of Incumbered Es-
tates in that country, with reference to an order of this
House, dated the 11th day of March last.—Agreed to.
DUBLIN CHARITABLE INSTITUTION.
Mr. REYNOLDS asked whether it was the intention
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on bringing up the
miscellaneous estimates, to propose a reduction of 10 per
cent. in the charitable institutions of Dublin?
The CHANCELLOR of th© EXCHEQUER said he
intended to move the estimates as they were printed in
the votes.

right to ask if Pitt, Peel, and the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite had failed to remove the inequalities of the tax
in question, could the Committee as now constituted re-
move them ? He was, therefore, of opinion that the
inquiry should be postponed until the next session of
Parliament.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE condemned the mode of appoint-
ing public Committers as unfair and unwise. That de-
bate had shown what little confidence the House reposed
in them; but the public at large reposed still less. In
fact, the country had no confidence in Committees of
that House, and they should, therefore, be appointed, as
in France, upon a different principle.
Mr. MO WATT denied the inference of the Hon.
Member (Mr. Miles), that because a remedy for the ine-
quality of the income-tax had not been discovered in the
last century, it could not be discovered in this. There
was the discovery of steam, railroads, &c., to disprove
that proposition. After the House had decided upon a
Committee for that purpose, it would bo unjust to ride
off on the opinions of parties and refuse it.
The CHANCELLOR of tho EXCHEQUER ex-
plained. Ho had only objected to going into a Committee
the majority of which was against the tax.
Sir J. WALSH had voted for the limitation of the tax
to one year instead of three; and, therefore, he did not
consider ho was giving a cross vote in supporting the
adjournment of the present debate. The difficulty in the
case was created by the fact of her Majesty's Govern-
ment having lost the power of carrying their own mea-
sures into effect, and still retaining the administration
of the country in their hands. After the declaration of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer there was, iu his opi-
nion, no option but that of adjourning the question.
Mr. BAILEY said a month had elapsed since the mo-
tion for a Committee was agreed to, and yet nothing
had been done in the matter.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said a few words, which were
inaudible.
Mr. DEEDES, in explanation, begged to say he did
not wish by his motion to shelve the question—he only
wanted a fair and honest inquiry into the subject.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY would remind his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hume) that ho had always said no Member
should be on two Committees at once. The Hon, Mem-
ber had departed from that rule, as he had named the
Hon. Member for the West Riding, who was already on
three Committees.
Mr. HUME had selected the Committee fairly. He
had consulted all sides of the House as far as possible
and as fairly as possible. All he asked was to have the
name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his four
names on the list, and he would give the Chancellor of
the Exchequer a carte blanche to till up the rest of the
Committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the best course would be to
agree to the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman. He
was not yet prepared to vote in favour of the name of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer being on the Commit-
tee on such a great financial question as that of a revi-
sion of the income-tax. Ho thought the best course
would be to agree to the adjournment of the debate, with
the view of enabling the Hon. Gentleman to prepare a.
Committee which the House would agree to. It was of
great importance this question should be further sifted,
but in the present state of the question he should vote
for the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. HUME wished to know who would take the
trouble to name the Committee?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
make another attempt, but he could not say he would
succeed. He would, however, do his best to form the
Committee, and that was all he could promise.
Mr. HUME said he would leave the Committee en-
tirely in the hands of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. COBDEN said the fact of the Hon. Member for
Huntingdon having refused to serve on the Committee
was quite sufficient to warrant the hesitation that. had
ensued. He did not agree with the view of Hon. Mem-
bers who wished to have Right Hon. Gentlemen on the
Committee who possessed financial and official expe-
rience. The object of the Coreininee was to alter or
modify the tax. Ho wished, however, to stipulate that
the absence of Hon. and Right Hon. Members from the
Committee of Inquiry should not be a valid objection to
the appointment of a Committee (we understood.)
Mr. lIERRIES merely rose to say he objected to
servo on the Committee, because he was unable to give
his attendance. It was not merely a financial question
—it was a question of a far wider character, and, there-
fore, financial experience was not the only requisite for
an appointment on the Committee.
The debate was adjourned to next Friday.
In reply to a question from Mr. HUME,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would give the Hon.
Member an early day to bring on the Borneo question;
and with respect to the ICafir question, if it could not be
brought on next Thursday he should take it on Friday.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. REYNOLDS rose to move that the words he
should read be omitted—" Under any designation or de-
scription whatever." In moving the omission of those
words he would state at the outset his object was to carry
out the declaration of the Prime Minister and the law
officers of the Crown, that they intended by the Bill to
leave the Catholics and the Catholic religion the same
rights as they had secured to them under the Act of
1829. He did not find the words in question in that
Act, and ho, therefore, wished to know how the law
officers could justify the retention of those words.
Would Government, after their previous declarations,
come forward and state that they were prepared to make
war on the Catholic religion? What had occurred to
justify this groat violation of civil and religious next) ?
Why, that his Holiness the Pope, in virtue of that power
which he spiritually enjoyed, d created certain arch-
bishops and bishops in England. It might be said his
Holiness had also created a Cardinal, but he doubted
whether that was the fact.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped
the next act of his Holiness would be to appoint Dr.
M'Hale a cardinal, and also to transmit a cardinal's
hat to Dr. Cullen, the Primate of all Ireland.
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman said we
should not be in a worse position now than after
the Act passed; but he was satisfied this would not be
correct. The Noble Lord, in his opening speech, had
declared that bulls had fallen into disuse, and that the
statutes applicable to them had become obsolete. But
by this Bill the Noble Lord would resuscitate and re-
vive these old enactments in all their persecuting and re-
prehensible force. The Hon. a• .d Learned Gentlenian
the Solicitor-General, in his peculiar way, had told the
House that they knew nothing about the law, while he
seemed to think that he was the law and the prophet too.
That Hon. and Learned Gentleman told the Roman
Catholics they would not be touched by the Act, but that
they would, in fact, be as safe as a diamond in cotton.—
(Laughter.) He should like to know what the Hon. and
Learned Member for Abingdon would do with the Act
if he should get it, and whether he would institute pro-
secutions under it if he happened to come into power?
There was another Hon. and Learned Gentleman who no
doubt looked forward to official existence in Ireland,
and to whom he should like to put the question as
to what he would do if the Bill became law, and he in
power. The Hon. and Learned Member for Enniskillen
was one of the most eloquent of the advocates for the late
Mr. O'Connell, on the occasion of his trial, and he had heard
from the lips of Mr. O'Connell himself words expressive
of his approbation of the advocacy of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman. That trial cost the country
75,0001.. and broke the heart of the man whom tho peo-
pie of Ireland considered to be their best friend. He
considered that the life of Mr. O'Connell had been bi.-
erificed to the bigotted and intolerant feeling which had
always been displayed against men who in Ireland
honestly and conscientiously expressed their opinions.—
(Hear.) He did not thick they would say that they
would dare to lay hands on one of the Lord's anointed
priests in Ireland. He had never threatened the Go•
vernment on the subject of this Bill. What he had told
them was, that if they passtel the Bill it would bo a
nullity and a dead letter. As a conscientious Catholic
ho said that resistance to such a law as this would be a
virtue, and ho would never call on his countrymen to
obey it. The Noble Lord might tell him that there
was a great deal of prejudice in England and Scotland
on this subject, and that it was necessary to legislate.
He was not there to justify any language of Cardinal
Wiseman that might have been painful to the feelings
of any Christian; but no language used by Cardinal
Wiseman could justify a measure like this against
the whole Roman Catholic population. There was,
he believed, a description of cur dog which, if kicked
by one person, bit the next person it met.
He did not say that that was exactly the feeling of the
people of England, but it was something like it. Sup-
pose the Bill became law, would they dare to pro-
secute the four Catholic archbishops and twenty-tour
bishops in Ireland, if they signed after the manner of
Dr. Mingle, Archbishop of fuam ? He cautioned the
Noble Lord against supposing that tho heads of the
Catholic Church in Ireland would submit to any en-
croachments on their rights. There was not a town or
village in Ireland which would not support the bishops,
if they signed according to their sees. The Noble
Lord might think that Lord Clarendon would be a
strong support to him, bat Lord Clarendon was at a dis-
count in Ireland. The Catholic Bishop of Dublin.
Dr. Murray, had refused to dine at the table of the Lord
Lieutenant on her Majesty's birthday, in consequence of
the insult which bad been offered to those of the Ca-
tholic faith. He was happy to hear that an interval of
fourteen days would elapse before the next discussion of
the measure. He regarded it as a sort of respite which
was intended to reconcile them to' their fate. During
the Easter recess he had visited Dublin, and had at-
tended a great meeting of Roman Catholics, at Which
resolutions were passed condemnatory, not only of this
Bill, but of the Government. Another resolution called
on all Irish Members to vote against the Government on
every occasion on which their existence might be endan-
gered, and,
with some few exceptions, the Irish Ca-
tholic Members had obeyed the resolution. At the
present moment a requisition was in course of signature
to arraign this Bill and to establish a Catholic Defence
Association. That association would be established, and
its first duty would be to carry on the agitation until this
Bill, if it became law, was repealed. A general election
was at hand, and he should do his inbest Ireland to op-
pose the return of any Member whowouldr Dolt votef for
the repeal of this measure and mien
against its authors. Some ataaa bMembersPoitg,lwarfare
K measure severe enough, 'The Hou. and notL e Learned
Member for Midhurst evidentl thought it too severe,
for be was prepared to exempt Ireland from the Bill.
Some of the friends cf the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had grumbled at his proposal, but he could assure them
that whatever might be the opinion within the House,
the people outside were beginning to think it was all a
delueion. He had listened with pleasure to the declara-
tion of the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Ferrall), when
he raid that the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment had lost his confidence, but regretted to find the
Hon. Member among the supporters of the Government
in the division on the Ceylon question, which the Right
lion. Member for tho University of Oxford had told
them was to be regarded as ia vote of censure. The
Honourable Member concluded by moving ,the omission

of the words " under any designation or description
whatever."
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had seen very lately in the
newspapsrs an address to the Hon. Gentlemen who op
-
posed that Bill, and who were complimented for exhi-
biting what was called "Spartan courage"—(Laughter)
--in the course they pursued. Ile did not know how
far they were entitled to the character of " Spartan ,cou-
rage;" but there was another designation to which be
wished they would entitle themselves—namely, tht!t°
" Spartan brevity."—(Hear hear, and laughter.) The_
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin had taken
another occasion of going into the whole question befe..,
them; but it did not appear to him (Lord J. Rens."?.
that he was obliged to follow the lion. Gentleman. Bat
he confessed hobled been rather surprised to hear ther
manner in which he had alluded to the vote of seethes.
Hon. Member on another question. Ile (Lord J. It?,_
sell) hoped he had misunderstood the Right Honourable
Gentleman the late Governor of Malta (Mr. M. 0 Yer_
rall) in supposing that ho said be had lost all confidence
in the present Govei lament for their introduction of that
Bill. But what he ensuld not understand was, that when
a charge was brought against a person for wanton
cruelty, and he was pronounced
guilty of judicial innr.
._
dcr—he could not uxederstend why individuals who veer!
not convinced that t hat charge was true, could cot?e
down to that .Houee to give a vote condemning tn...
U
character of that purson in order to show their want
of confidence in the Government.—(Hear, hear.)
He had been tonal that letters had been 9!„112.d
to the Irish Memberto requiring them to vote so. Ile
thatu
not think that H
on. Gentlemen could be unaware
they were then givi ag an opinion upon the Ceylon,
11,11 d
,_
not the Papal, quese 'Dn.—(iese) With respect :
to the
present clause, tho C ommittee would recollect
that it was
a clause to prevent the assumption in this country of wasee"
titles of Archbishop of Westminster, or Bishop of '.
minghato, or Bishop of Clifton; but although it went'.
..
beyond the Relief Biell in the letter, it was in full confor-
mity with the spirit of that Act. Both by law, and 119,.
matter of policy, no. foreign power should give 3 terri-
torial title to a prelate in this country, whether it er
re
the title of an existing bishopric or not. The Hon. Ge„.
tlean was mistaken in supposing that in endearourith
to defend themselves they did anything to change very
much the present setee of things. If it was not law'
now for a Roman C at.belie to take the title of Archbishop
.
of Dublin or of Az magh, ought it not to be equal
so with respect to taking the title of Archbishop of ore
in this country? etithough nothing was a
more Pro.
fitable modern prof lesion than that of a martyr,. if J)r.
Miele chose to it ecur the penalties of that
Act, be
should be allowed te, do so. Believing that the wordy
referred to were )1 ecessary to carry out the proper
meaning of the clawoe, he would oppose their omission.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE said, although he sat at that side o,
the House, he shorted be as ready to vote his want of
confidence in the eleinistry as any Hon. Member opP°'
site, provided they o ontinued the same line of policy
which they at preseret pursued towards Ireland. Lot not
Hon. Gentlemen therefore say, because he did not occupy
a place at their side csf the House that he was the cover
friend of the Goverranent. He regretted that the Noble
Lord did not accede to the proposition of the Hon. Metre
ber for Dublin, which he thought was an extremely Inn'
deeate one. What that proposition asked was simply to
allow the Roman Catholic bishops and ecclesiastical dig'
nitaries to give up their present titles, and take up others,
such as the Dissenters, the Presbyterians, and Meth°.
dists did in this country.
Mr. WHITESID.E; said it was impossible for any
Irish Member, feeling as he did, to listen in silence t,O
the speech of the Ron. Member for Dublin. He had
been asked whether would be a party to a measure of
persecution directe ci against a portion of his fellow' countrymen, and to that fie ilea answered that be would
not.—(fiesr, hear.) The mode of argument pursued by
the Hon. Member for Dublin was peculiar. First, he as'
sumod the principle of the measure, and described it se-
one of bigotry, of cruelty, of intolerance, of oppression,
of everything that was bail. The, Hon. Gentleman,
in
alluding to a case in which he (Mr. Whiteside) had
borne a part, had pronounced a eulegium on a Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir Graham), who sat near him (Mr.
Whiteside), for his zaanly vindication of the rights of
the people. Now that Right Hon. Baronet was the chief mover in the poosecution against Mr. O'Connell.--• (Hear, hear.) It .vas a bill of indictment preferred
against a nation. It was defined by the Minister then
in power that if there was a breach of the law, the greater the number of persons who were involved in it
the more necessary did it become to vindicate the law
strictly. On that ground was that prosecution main-
tained. The Hon. Gentleman said the people of Ireland
were to be deprived of some rights which they pos-
sessed. If that were satisfactorily proved to him he
would vote with the Hon. Gentleman. , Was it proposed
then to repeal the .6.0 t of Emancipation? He could say
the Hon. Gentleman himself was the first party to
break that Act, by mot keeping its provisions and stipu-
lations.—(Hear,) Whatever might be said of the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government, it could never be al-
leged but that, so far as the patronage of the Crown was
concerned, he had fairly and honourably carried out its
spirit.—(hoar, hear.)) Did the Roman Catholic bishops
possess the right of territorial rank and dignity legally
in Ireland? If they had it by law, they should have it
by his vote.—(Hear, hear.) But had they those titles
by statute law, by territorial right, or long usage? He
denied that it was so. If over there was a simple law,:
the statute law on the subject was clear. There was
the statute of Richard 11. yet in force in Ireland; and.
the statute of Elizabeth was also in operation. The,gth
and 10th of Victoria 'proved that the Act of Elizabeth
was in force. By one of those Acts, to maintain the
jurisdiction of the Pope was a breach of the law; and by
another it was the same to accept a commission from the
Pope. Now, although the first law was passed in Ca-
tholic times, it was expounded in Protestant times. It
was not the granting of a commission by the Pope
which exceeded the law, but the accepting of it, and
the attempt to exercise authority under the same. Did
the Hon. Member for Dublin remember the oath which
he (her. Whiteside) had taken at that table?--(Hear,
hear.) He had been obliged to swear that the Pope of
Rome had no spiritual jurisdiction in this realm; and
that oath he believed to be true.
Mr. REYNOLDS said he did not take it.
Mr. WHITESIDE continued—With great respect he
maintained that this was a Protestant country—(" No,
no," from the Irish Members)—and when they were
obliged to swear that the Pope had no jurisdiction
within this realm they should keep their oath.—(Hear.)
How did the matter stand in Ireland even after the time
of James I.? By acts of Anne and William there was
still a clear refusal to grant the assumption of any eccle-
siastical titles in Ireland. Acts passed in those two
reigns distinctly forbade any clerical rank. Even the
21st and 22d of George 111., the first Act contemplating
any relief towards the Roman Catholics, still continued
the same restriction with regard to titles. How, he
would ask, did the Act the 35th of George 111., that
under which the College of Maynooth had been esta-
blished, deal with that point? It was essential that • Maynooth should be governed by trustees, who were to'
be dignitaries of the Catholic Church, and how did the Act describe those whom it was necessary to name?
doctornominateddivinity; of and another as Dr. Troy, of Dublin,
(Hear, hear.) It would be very bard
to discover from the 10th George IV. how it gave terri-
torial titles to those ecclesiastics; for it created a penalty .
for an encroachment, and that was no proof that the
said encroachment was legal before. Actions had'
been brought by laymen from time to time against
bishops for the fearful act of excommunication pro-
nounced by them, and damages recovered against the
bishops. There had been instances in which the bishops,
insisting on their jurisdiction, claimed their right to do
what they had done because they were bishops of the
Church of Rome. One case had been that of a plaintiff
named Boylan against the Right Rev. P. M‘Loughlin,
Bishop of Raphoe. After referring to the opinion of
counsel on the case, the Hon. and Learned Member
quoted the judge's decision, which was to the effect that
on no occasion had a Roman Catholic bishop a right to
punish a parishioner by pronouncing against him a sen-
tence of excommunication, such being a breach of the
law, and a usurpation of the powers of the bishops of
the Established Church. That case went before the
Court of Queen's Bench, and the question raised
was the spiritual jurisdiction, and Chief Justice
Dinner had decided that the law was against the
claim. The Honourable and Learned Member referred
to one or two other cases of a similar nature to show
that the jurisdiction claimed was not allowed. In most
of the cases damages bad been recovered. It was ad-
mitted that neither the canon law nor the discipline of the
Church of Rome was known to the law of England; and
if one broke the law, it was no answer to claim to have
done so and so under the authority of the Church of
Rome.—(Hear, hear.) He asserted that the Roman
Catholics were more interested in maintaining that law
than the Protestants; for if the system of their church
was administered in the same way in which he had seen
it in Rome, he would ask whatliberty could they possess?
He was disposed to give his Roman Catholic fellow-
countrymen full liberty—liberty of speech, of thought,
of action, ef study; he only maintained that the Govern-
ment of this country, being a Protestant country, should
be a Protestant Government. He was willing to make
every concession to them short of surrendering that vital
principle.—(Hear hear.) If Dr, Whateley was nomi-
nated Archbishop of Dublin by the Sovereign of this
realm, how could it be tolerated that the Pope of Rome
should appoint another person to the same position? lie
was accused of attacking the liberties of his Roman Ca-
tholic fellow-countrymen. He denied the charge.
wished for liberty in Ireland—he wished for liberty in
Rome; he did not wish to confine its blessings within the
narrow' limits of the empire in which he dwelt; he
would much rather say,
versall—(Cheers.) may they be permanent and Ma*
Mr. MONSELL said there had been a manifest fallacy
running throughout the entire speech of the lion, and
Learned Gentleman. The Roman Catholics did not ask
that House to recognise their bishops—all they asked
was, not to be prevented from recognising them them-
selves. The Hun. Gentleman had alluded to the May-
nooth Act, but it would be easily seen that those divines
named in that Act could not well be otherwise described.
In Mr. Pitt's time, in the year 1792, a petition from the
Roman Catholics of Ireland had been presented to the
King (George III.) on his throne, and the two first sig-
naturesArchbishep of Dub-
of Cork. The policy of
to that had been Dr. Troy,
Dub-
the and Dr. Moylan, BiAeop
the Government of that day had been to get the Court
of Item® to substitute bishops for vicars-apostolic in this
country. In one of the cases alluded to by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, an indictment had
been
preferred
against the party because letters had been found in his
pocket describing him its Vicarius Apostolicus of the
sees of Dublin and Kildare. Thus he was proceeded
against, not as a bishop but as a vicar-apostolic, and
therefore they were as much against them as the bishops. '
With respect to the statute of prcernunire, he should ob-
serve that all the authorities showed that the object of
that statute was to prohibit bulls of excom-
munication, and bulls tor translating bishops from
their sees against their wills. believed that