The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-26 00:00:00

MARCH 26, 1851

a certain extent would detach them from Rome. They
found, therefore, that the history of the case was this, that
the moderate party in the Church was always asking for
diocesan bishops, that the extreme party always supported
the system of vicars-apostolic, and that the Government
sided with the moderate party. It was his (Mr. Gladstone's
opinion that the course Ministers were taking, so far from
stopping the course of affairs, was calculated to do the very
reverse—that it was throwing them back, acd a move in the
direction of penal laws. It was both a persecution and a nul-
lity. If they wished to exercise a beneficial influence on the
Roman Catholics they must reverse their policy. They
must deal with them kindly. They had feelings and affec-
tions they could turn to account, for they were distinguished
by their attachment to their country, and their attachment
to the Crown.—(llear, hear.) If they drove them back on
the Pope, what could they expect but alienated feelings,and
the difficulties on the other side of the Channel would be
proportionately increased. In that country their difficulties
had already commenced. When the colleges were opened
last year, they had a party in the Catholic Church in favour
of the colleges, and there was a division in that Church on
the question. But there was no division now.—(Hear, bear,
and cheers.) The question with them now was, should
they go backwards or forwards?—(Hear, hear.) He con-
tended that there had been no temporal interference
by the Pope in the late appointments, except such as were
incidental to the office of bishop. Wonld they, then, go
backwards, or forwards, in religious liberty? Did they think
so ill of their own religion as to fear the breath of free com-
petition ?—(Hear, hear.) It was useless to urge that the
present measure was but a trifling retrogression. Of course
it was but a trifling retrogression ; but all retrogressions
were so at first. But what security had they that other and
more formidable measures were not in the back ground--
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear") —and that during the next
half century the question of religious liberty would not again
act upon Parliament, and be made the means of unseating
Ministers ?—( Hear, hear.) Do not tell him that the cha-
racter of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was a security.
He once thought it was—(Hear, hear) —but if they prophe-
sied that the Noble Lord would not prohibit the action
of synods, he feared they woul Ibe in error. If in 1845
any one had told him that in the month of March, 1851,
the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill to prohibit ecclesias-
tical titles on the part of Roman Catholic bishops, he
(Mr. Gladstone) would not have believed it.
He never heard a more impresssive passage than one which
was delivered by the Noble Lord in his speech upon the
second reading of the Bill for enlarging the endowment of
the college of Nlaynooth, when the Noble Lord referred to
some lines of Virgil—
" Scilicet et tempus veniet, cum finibus illis
Agricola, incurvo terrain molitus aratro,
Exesa inveniet scabrit rubigine pile ;
Aut gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit inanes,
Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris."
The Noble Lord said, that upon the sceneswhere battles had
been fought the hand of nature effaced the ruin which the
hand of man had wrought; and the cultivator of the soil in
aftertimes found the rusted arms, and looked upon them
with joy as the memorials of forgotten strife, and as enhanc-
ing the blessings of his peaceful occupation ; but he added,
in reference to the powerful opposition to that measure, that
it seemed that our strifes upon the question of religious free-
dom never were at an end, and our arms never were to rust.
—(Hear, hear.) Would any man who heard the Noble Lord
deliver those impressive sentences have believed, not only
that strife in regard to the great question of religious liberty
was to be revived—revived, it was to be feared, with a great
deal of acerbity—in this year 1851—(Hear, hear)—but that
he himself was to be a main agent in the revival—(Hear,
hear) - that his was to be the head which was to wear the
helmet, and his the hand which was to grasp the spear ?
( Hear, hear.) The principle of religious freedom—its adapta-
tion to their modern state and to their ancient institutions,
was not adopted rashly. Were they going to spend the
latter part of the century in undoing that which they had
already done? It must be recollected that Europe, and the
civilized world, looked to England at the present moment.
They knew that nothing was so distasteful to England as
obsolete theories, and that when she made a step forward,
she kept it—that she was not a republic to-day, and a mo-
narchy to-morrow. If the people of England, then, at-
tempted to turn back the principle of civil and religious
liberty it would recoil upon themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord had appealed to those on his (Mr. Glad-
stone's) side of the House in the names of Hampden and
of Pym ; but he confessed he would rather have heard those
names appealed to on any other subject—(Hear, hear)—
because if there was one blot on their scutcheons, it was the
odious intolerance which they practised against the Catholics.
(Hear, hear.) He would rather prefer appealing to those
great men who were mentioned by Hallam, to whom they
owed the safety of this great monarchy, and whose disposi-
tion was to avert the severity of the laws and to attach to
them their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Alluding
to the party with which he was connected the Right Hon.
Gentleman said, there was no great band of union which
bound them together ; but that they felt they should, one
day, have the forceof public opinion.—(Cheers and laughter.)
He entreated the House to consider well the conclusion to
which they were about to come on this important question,
and trusted that their votes would be given in accordance
with the sacred principles of justice, and that while they
were sustained by a sense of justice, they would resolve to
follow wherever it might lead. The Right Hon. Gentleman
resumed his seat amid loud cheering, which continued for
several minutes.

Mr. DISRAELI-Sir, I think I gave testimony last night,
by voting against the adjournment of the debate, that I did
not wish to intrude on the House in this debate. I hope,
however, that as few of those with whom I usually act have
addressed the House on this subject, trusting perhaps to my I
feeble expression of their views-that I may have the oppor-
tunity of expressing with extreme brevity our views of the
general question which has been mooted, and particularly of
the measure offered to our consideration. Sir, we have been
informed by a Minister of the Crown that an aggression has
been committed against the supremacy of the Sovereign and
the honour of the nation. By the same means that this in-
formation was conveyed to us, we were informed that the
aggression was committed by a prince of no great power.
Fellowing up that intimation, the Hon. and Learned Member
for Sheffield has talked of that power as a poor feeble priest ;
and more than one Hon. Gentleman has taken several op-
portunities of reminding us that the present possessor of the
Papal see was surrounded by French bayonets-a fact which
has been reiter ,ted as a reason for our countenancing the
aggression which the Government has confessed has taken
place. Now, Sir, I would remind the House that more than
three centuries ago the Pope was not only supported-if I
may use the expression-by French bayonets, but that Rome
was taken and sacked by a french prince, and that the Pope
of those days suffered indignities greater than Pius IX. has
ever been subjected to. Yet, since that period, the greatest
achievements of the Papal see have occurred ' • and since that
period, and notwithstanding the strong will of Henry VIII.
and the pure spirit of Edward VI., the Protestant Establish-
ment in England was subverted ; and it is only because the
at' empt of Phillip and Mary was not successful that I am
not at this moment perhaps addressing a Popish Speaker
and a Popish Parliament.-(Hear.) Now, Sir, whatever
may be our opinions of this aggression, it is not true-it is
not wise to despise the foe who committed it.- (Hear, hear.)
1 deny, Sir, that this prince is a prince of no great power.
I say he is a prince of very great power-if not of the
greatest. I will not dwell on those millions of his sub-
jects of whose existence we have been so often reminded by
speakers on both sides, but I will remind the House that, in-
dependent of that circumstance the Pope has at his com-
mand, between the regular and secular clergy, an army of
1,000,000 of priests, governed by thousands of bishops and
atelbishops, and that he was the general and lieutenant
general of this great host.-(Hear.) And is this, Sir, the
power that we are told is to be treated in the same way
as we treat the Wesleyan Conference.-(Cheers.) Is this a
power to be associated with the last invention of Scotch
Dissenters ?-(Hear, hear.) When I listened, Sir, to the
ingenious reasonings with which this fallacy was supported,
and to the fallacious analogies of the Right lion. Gentle-
man, I fora moment supposed they were only a display of
dialectics to adorn the debate.-(Hear, hear.) But when
I remember the high position of those who have indulged in
them, I could not help suspecting that there was a concealed
object, and that their comparisons were more pregnant with
meaning than they seemed to be.- (Hear.) And, indeed,
Sir, it has scarcely been concealed by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman who has just sat down, for he says, " If you
apply this doctrine to the Queen's supremacy, and to those
adhering to the Roman Catholic communion, on what plea
can you refuse to apply it to Wesleyans, or to Scotch Dis-
senters?" But, Sir, the converse of the proposition is
equally true, and if that interpretation of religious liberty
supported 1.;), the Right Honourable Gentleman and the
Honourable and Learned Member for Plymouth is to be ac-
cepted and applied to the Church of Rome, on what plea
can you refuse to apply the same principle of religious
liberty not only to the Church of Rome, but to the Church
of England ?- (Cheers.) On what ground can you vindi-
cate a restriction of the principle which you support, so far
as the Church of England is concerned? Is she not to have
the command of her internal discipline and internal arrange-
ments? Why is she not to have a synod of action?-
(Cheers.) Why is the Church of England alone to acknow-
ledge the supremacy of the Queen?-(Hear,' hear.) Why,
Sir, we see the trouble involved in the principle assumed.-
(Hear. hear.) The only inference you can draw from the
new philosophy of the Right Honourable Gentleman and his
friends is, that they are opposed to the alliance between
Chwch and State.-(Loud cheers.) I believe the House
of Commons are not yet prepared to support that prin-
ciple. -(Renewed cheers.) Sir, I cannot deal with this ag-
gression of the Pope on the abstract principles which have
been introduced into the discussion. I must look to the cir-
cumstances which surround us. On one side it is acknow-
ledged that there has been a great revival of Romanism in
Europe. No one denies that. But, on the other hand, it is
said that there has been a great revival of Protestantism in
England. What will be the issue of the struggle which the
Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Ripon seemed to think inevitable in Europe, I
will not take upon me to say. The circumstances are so
complicated and the catastrophe so awful, that we shrink
from attempting to form an opinion of so terrible a contin-
gency. What may be the issue in our own country is unfor-
tunately a subject on which every man is much more quali-
fied to form a judgment. I confess the possible result is one
which makes me shudder, and I think Government would
only be doing its duty, if a contest between Romanism and
Protestantism was inevitable in this country, if it proposed
measures and advised a line of conduct to prevent such mischiefs
and to counteract such evils.-(Hear.) I come now to inquire
whether the measure proposed is adequate for such an end,
and whether, if the circumstances detailed be authentic, it
is calculated to prevent the mischief contemplated. I re-
member I ventured, on the introduction of them measifirei thoe
say that it was not equal to the p.roe
Noble Lord-that it asserted no principlesandvine-
dicated no right. After the lapse of some few hours w
bad another version of the measure by the chief law
important
character. of the Crown, which gave it a more
character. The Attorney-General informed us that the
measure would not only deal with titles illegitimately
assumed, but with bequests and endowments to persons
assuming these titles; and he reminded ns, in a tone of
self-complacency, that synodical ,action would be dealt
What, then, was the Act? The whole projects of
with.t the Attorney-General was -suddenly withdrawn, and we
were told that we were only to discuss a Bill containing
one clause, and when the Secretary of State made this
announcement on the part of Ministers, he scarcely con-
cealed their opinion that it would be inoperative in Ire-
land and might be evaded in England; but that it was
necessary to pass it as a demonstratiln and as a protest.
(Hear, hear.) I ask, Sir, what could be a better vin-
dication of the course proposed by Lord Stanley
than this proceeding of the Ministry? - (Hear, hear.) If
the best course was to protest in the face of Europe, would
not a resolution of the two Houses have been of more avail,
not only for that purpose, but also to sustain the spirit of
England, than the project of a law, which in the course of
six weeks has undergone countless transformations, and
which has been announced by its projectors as ineffective, and
the effect of which is even, perhaps', more than doubtful? I
want to place before the House the reasons for my disap-
proval of the measure. My first objection is, that by im-
plication it confesses that the conduct of Cardinal Wiseman,
of which you complain, was not illegal. It must have been
, eitlAer one or the other. If it were legal, it was-hot 'an
offence-if it were illegal, why then did you not deal with it
by the law ? 13ut he wee told that the law wile obsolete.

The circumstances, Sir; in the present case were fresh and
fligrant. The law which could have dealt with it was not
obsolete, but ancient.—(Hear, hear.) And it is treason
against the liberties of England to contend that all ancient
laws are obsolete, because our liberties depended upon such.
—(Hear, hear and cheers.) The second reason for my
objection to this Bill is, that it attempts to legislate upon
phrases and not facts. It attempts to legislate upon tithes.
Now this is clear, that if you press the law, no person
who could be subjected to it will ever place himself
in a position as an offender under it. Yet he will not
the less use the titles and those incidents which are conse-
quent upon his office. The whole thing is founded on a
fallacy. If you choose to legislate on titles, you should not
legislate against the assumption of titles by the bishops of
th Roman Catholic Church, but against those titles of
honour and dignity which have been conferred upon them
by her Majesty's kinisters.—(Cheers.) What a mockery it
is when the Ministers are caressing and lauding these bishops,
to be proposing penal statutes, because those bishops: are
treated with respect and honour by one class of her Majesty's
subjects.—(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary for the Home Department had told them that these
bishops were so addressed by the Government on the ground
of social courtesy. Nothing was more inane than to legis.
late against those titles assumed by the Roman Catholic
bishops, and not against those titles of honour conferred on
them by the Government.—(Cheers.) I repeat that the Bill
asserted no principle. That cannot be questioned. It would
be assuredly a principle if it laid this down, that no person
should accept place or dignity, employment or office,
civil or ecclesiastical, from any foreign prince, except
with the consent of her Majesty. That might be a
national enactment and have taken the form of a statesman-
like precaution, instead of the present measure which had
only the appearance of a spiteful act of the Government of
this country against Popery. It may be said that the con-
sent of the Crown would be equivalent to a veto. That I
deny. I will not now stop to argue upon the propriety or
otherwise of the veto; but I deny that such a measure as I
suggested would amount to a veto. The Roman Catholic
bishop, as a matter of course, receives his appointment upon
doing that which every gentleman elected in the constitu-
tional way to represent a constituency in this house is bound
to do— namely, to take the oaths that are proposed
to him upon his appointment to such an office.
I feel the utter impossibility at this hour of the night to
enter fully into this,discussion. 1 feel also that I have great
difficulties to contend against in attempting to criticise the
measure before us. The relations that subsist between me
and the Noble Lord are not those which-are faronrable' to
a candid criticism.— (Hear.) If the Noble Lord were my
Noble Friend—(Loud cheers)—if there subsisted between us
relations of friendship—even of affection—(Cheers and laugh-
ter)—l would availmyself of the proud privilege of such mu-
tual sensibility, and rest assured I would take care:neither to
spare his policy or his feelings.— (Renewed laughter.) And
this reminds me that while attempting to prove that this mea-
sure is inefficient, although I shall vote for the second reading
of it upon the same grounds as were stated by my lion and
L earned Friend near me (Sir F. Tbesiger), though not in
any way pledging myself ultimately to support the Bill—
though I think it will be evaded in England and inoperative
in Ireland—yet that it had been supported and opposed by
authorities of the greatest importance and commented upon
in language of a most varied character. I heard it stated
by one party that this Bill would be opposed because it was
a reversial of our policy. Sir, I have heard these phrases
before.—(Cheers.) I remember, about two years ago,
making a very moderate proposition to mitigate the burden
of taxation upon a suffering class of her Majesty's subjects,
and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.
Graham) then my opponent, as he is now the opponent of
the Government, did oppose the proposition, because be said
it was the reversal of our policy.—(Hear, hear.) But on
that occasion the pretext appeared to be so monstrous that
it was not swallowed by the Right Hon, Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). But
on the present occasion," the reversal of our policy" is likely
to bear some serious consequences. These consequences, we
are told by the Right Hon. the Member for Ripon, are to
be inevitable and immediate if this Bill passes
into a law—namely, a civil war in Ireland. Now I heard
that announcement with some misapprehension, but with
more surprise.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gen-
tleman reminded us of the state of Ireland in 1829, and he
said that we escaped civil war then by yielding to ber de-
mands, but you will sot escape it even if you persist in this
measure. He made an analogy between the state of Ireland
in 1829 and 1851, and according to him that analogy was
complete. I ask him now whether that analogy was just,
and whether it was complete and proved? If so, what, then,
is the result of all those great measures we have parsed for
the amelioration of Ireland during the last twenty years?..
(Hear, hear.) If the state of Ireland be in the same posi-
tion now as it was in 1829. What, I say, was the use of
giving complete political equality to the Roman Catholics in
Ireland; of reconstructing the Church Establishment there;
of abolishing tithes, and of establishing the great system of
national education founded by Lord Stanley?—(Hear,
hear.) What, I say then, was the use of granting them
municipal reform, by which the corporation was
opened to all creeds, and upon the lowest franchise, not-
withstanding the opposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman
himself ? (Cheers.) What was the use of the new colleges—
of giving to the Roman Catholics a university munificently
endowed? What was the use of your doing for Ireland that
which you had not done for England, namely, of having
revised and increased the franchise in Ireland; if it be true
that Ireland in 1851 is in the same state it was in 1829,
namely, on the verge of rebellion ?—(Cheers.) Sir, I have
too much faith not only in the loyalty, but the common sense
of the Irish people, to believe that this is the case.—(Hear.)
If that were true which had fallen from the lips of the Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, why, I ask, are those
the lips through which such an intimation is circulated?—
(Cheers.) I make these observations because the Right
Hou. Gentleman is no inconsiderable person. He is one of
" the foremost men of all this world," and according to the
not very delicate intimation of his friends, he is even likely
soon to occupy a still more responsible situation than he at
pr rsent fills.— (Hear, hear.) He wears the white robe,
and stands in the forum a candidate for the consulate.—

(Cheers.) It will be well for the people to pause over the
observations he has made, for they have been both strange
and singular in the course of this session.—(Hear, hear.) I
proposed one day a revision of the taxation in respect to
the suffeiing farmer, and the Right Hon. Baronet threatens
me wick a mutiny in the army.—(Cheers.) Some elections
took place not exactly favourable to the views he enunci-
ated, and he threatens us with Parliamentary reform.—
(Laughter.) A measure is brought forward to resist what is
styled a foreign aggression, hostile to the honour of the na-
tion and the supremacy of the Sovereign, and he says that
there will be a rebellion in Ireland. —(Renewed laughter.)
Now, I hear in the course of eight weeks three remarkable
assertions, which are well worthy the consideratien of those
who are uncertain in mind and are likely to alarm those who
~re peaceably disposed. Let us consider, then, whether the
Right Hon. Gentleman is likely to become the pilot that will
weather the storm. There was one great measure brought
forward for Ireland in the course of the last twenty years,
which was not successful, and that was the only one that
was proposed by the Minister which did not succeed. Itwas
one that would ;have despoiled the Protestant Establishment
of part of its revenues in order to partially endow the Roman
Catholic Church in Ireland. That measure was brought
forward by the Noble Lord, but it was defeated by the oppo-
sition of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. This
shows how little acquainted, after all, we are with all that
takes place about us, and how difficult it is for us to form an
accurate conception of contemporary events, even of those in
which we ourselves have mingled, when it is reserved for
this debate for the House of Commons and the country to
be informed what the motives were which induced the Right
Hon. Gentleman to take the course which he then pursued,
It appeared that the opposition given to the appropriation
clause upon his part was solely influenced by an abstract ob-
jection to endowments.—(Hear' hear.) I wuader if that was
the motive which animated Lord Stanley, who was then the
companion of the Right Hon. Baronet, for they both stood
together on their chivalry. But it is certain that neither
this House nor the country was in the secret, or did really
believe that the opposition of the Right Hon. Baronet to the
appropriation clause was founded upon an abstract objection
to endowments. If I had heard it from any other person I
should imagine this objection to come from a titular arch-
bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, from the cardinal, or
the general of the Jesuit:. Was it for this that the Cabinet
of Lord Grey was subverted? Was it for this that the Right
llcnourable Gentleman had enlisted himself under that Con-
servative banner which he has so faithfully served?—
(Ironical cheers.) Sir, I Con% believe there is the
slightest chance or fear of civil war in Ireland.
I agree with the Right Honourable Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) that the principle of civil
liberty is too deeply impressed on the minds of the people of
this age that they could be stimulated to the commission of
any such unhappy outrages. It is utterly impossible that
Ireland could be governed on the principles of the Protee-
taut ascendancy; but equally certain is it that no Govern-
ment can exist that is not faithfully devoted to the Protes-
tant Constitution of this country.— (Great cheering.) In its
maintenance are involved greater interests than the fate of a
Government—namely, the fate of the crown and the destiny
of the empire; and, trust me, not the least important interest
involved in it is that of the civil and religious liberties of the
Roman Catholics themselves.—(Cheers.) _ .

- -
Sir G. GREY said it was impossible not to be struck with
the fact, that amongst the most able of the opponents to
this Bill—men of great talent, ingenuity, and sophistry—in
pointing out objections to the course the Government were
pursuing, and in detailing their difficulties and embarrass-
ments, there was a remarkable absence of any one fixed
or definite principle upon which their objections to the Go-
meat measure rested. It was asserted by the Roman Catholic
Members of that House, for whom he entertained the
most sincere respect, that the Bill embodied the
principle of persecution, and was opposed to religious
freedom. He challenged any one to adduce the
proofs in support of such an assertion. He agreed
with the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for
the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) in the principle
which he had laid down as the only one that should guide
us in dealing with it—namely, that it should be framed upon
the ground of imperial policy. So far as the spiritual pro-
gress of the Roman Catholic faith and spiritual means were
concerned,.we should be departing from the principles which
guided as if we in any degree fettered by law the progress of
that religion ; and he admitted that his ttoman Catholic
friends would have a clear right to complain, if we violated
those principles of equality and freedom, or did net allow
our fellow-subjects the same extent of freedom which we
claimeed for ourselves. On this subject he could only say
he did not regret the act of the
effect of invoking the strong pe, because it had the
attachment of the people
of this country to the Protestant Church, and of drawing
together in one bond of union the members of the
different Protestant communions, not for the purpose of
forcing on the Legislature any undue restrictions, but for the
purpose of repelling what they considered to be an aggres-
sion upon their rights and liberties. He deeply regretted
that anything of a polemical character should enter
into these debates. There
were two points to be here
considered. The first was, whether there had been such
an aggression on the sovereignty of the Queen and the in-
dependence of the nation, as called upon Parliament to inter-
fere, and next whether if this be answered in the affirma-
tive, this was a measure which Parliament, under the cir-
cumstances, ought to adopt? The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Plymouth in his very able speech bad defended the
act of the Pope, as based on the principle of religious free-
dbm ; and had denied that it was opposed to the law of na-
tions. He had said it was only in that manner that the or-
ganisation which the Roman Catholics had a right to use,
could be carried out ; and the conclusion to which the lion.
and Learned Gentleman had come to was, that. Parliament
had nothing to do with that attempt. The lion. Gentleman
who had followed him in the debate, however, had enter-
tained a stronger sense of the aggression, and his quarrel
with the Government was, that it proposed to do too little, and
not too much in the matter. Another Honourable Member
bad considered that some legislation was necessary, but that
it ought not to be directed against the subjects of her Ma-
jesty, but against the Pope himself. Now he (Sir George
Grey) could not see how legislation could take place in re-
spect of that question, without affecting the subjects of her
Majesty. The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Sidney Herbert) had said that the act of the. Pope was
defensible, and had asked how the civil or political state of
this country was affected by it? And he had gone en even
to claim credit for the l'ort for Appointing bizboo itutifsd

°f vicars-apostolic, thereby making the nation more inde-
pendent of Rome. The Right Honourable Gentleman did
not always hold these sentiments; for on referring to a
Wiltshire paper, he (Sir G. Grey) found an account of a
esseeting held on the 6th of December last, at which the
laoht Hon. Gentleman had proposed a motion which was
sectsnded by the Dean of Salisbury, and its tenor was of a
very different nature from the sentiments recently professed
Gentleman. The Right Hon. Baronet
by the Right Hon,
here proceeded to read the resolution to which he referred,
and whicis commenced by saying that that meeting viewed
with indignsttion the attempt made by the Court of Rome,
and considered the assumption by a foreign potentate to im-
pose a Roman Catholic hierarchy upon this country was an
unwarrantable assumption of the Royal prerogative, and a
gross insult to the nation.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Such was the resolution proposed by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman cheered
bins (Sir G. Grey) as if he still entertained the same
opinions. He could only say, if the Right Hon. Gentleman
did so, he had very imperfectly expressed them in that
Souse.—(Hear, and laughter.) In pursuance of the reso-
lutions passed at that Meeting, an address to the Queen had
been also moved, with a portion only of which he would
trespass on the House.
Mr. S. HERBERT—Iethe Right Hon. Baronet will allow
me I will save him sonic trouble. I distinctly refused to sign
the address because I did not concur with it.—(Hear.)
Sir G. GREY said the part which he was about reading
agreed wonderfully with the resolution to which he bad al-
ready alluded.— (Hear and laughter.) It had been moved
by Mr. Sotheron that a petition should be presented to the
Houses of Lords and Commons, and that petition had been
equally condemnatory of the assumption of the Pope. Now,
if the Right Hon. Gentleman disi ented from those docu-
ments there was no record of his dissent in the report of the
proceedings before him.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore he (Sir
G. Grey) did not think the Right Hon. Gentleman was the
safest possible guide in that matter.— (Hear and laughter.)
He came then to the Right Hon. Baronet the -Member for
Ripon (Sir James Graham) who had spoken of the act and the
language of the Pope as arrogant and assuming in the ex-
treme, and had said that it was such a matter as the Go-
vernment could not pass over unnoticed. Bat though the
Right Hon. Baronet had expatiated at great length upon the
subject, he had never told them the course which he, occupy-
ing the distinguished position which he did, would advise
the House to pursue.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member
for Abingdon, indeed, recommended the revival of the old
statutes of premunire ; but that was a proceeding which the
law officers of the Government did not feel disposed to re-
commend or to adopt, although they believed the introduc-
tion of that Papal brief was a violation of the statute law of
the land. The Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House
had recommended diplomatic agency, with a distinct intima-
tion that war was not to be the result ; but even if they had
a diplomatic agent at Rome, all he could do would be to re-
commend the withdrawal of the brief a matter which the
Roman Catholic Members had told them was impossible.
The Hon. Member for Plymouth, in the course of his speech,
passed by several essential differences which he ought to
recollect. The organization of which he spoke did not pro-
ceed from a foreign Power. But yet, on that occasion it did
'proceed from a foreign Power, and that, toe, without any
communication with, or the approval of, the sovereign of
the realm. It had been characterised by a mix-
ture of a temporal and spiritual jurisdiction. An-
other point was the claim of universal dominion
which distinguised the Papal authority from that of
all other bodies of religionists. He would ask any man
who read the documents, whether there was not a claim to
exercise a temporal and a civil jurisdiction as well as a
spiritual one?—(Hear.) It was impossible to reject that
consideration It was because that was the act of a foreign
power, parcelling out this country into certain divisions,
without the authority or consent of the Sovereign—it was
that which had roused the spirit of the people of this coun-
try, and which induced them, like our ancestors, to take mea-
sures to guard the independence of this nation against the
aggression of any foreign power. In no country in Europe
did the interference of the Pope take place without being
in accordance with the State, or in virtue of some direct
municipal law authorising such interference. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford
( Mr. Gladstone) had cited various periods of history in
which vicars-apostolic had been requested to be changed,
but such had never taken place without the sanction and
interference of the British Government. That project had
neen entertained for a long time, but it had never been
agreed to without the imposition of such conditions as would
prevent the encroachments or assumptions of the see of
Rome. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had
said that on a former occasion Sir J. Hippesley, being in
communication with the Government and Roman Catholics
• in this country, bad applied to the Pope to substitute bishops
for vicars-apostolic, which had been refused at the time.
The facts of the case were incorrectiy stated, unintentionally,
he had no doubt, by the Right Hon. Baronet. But even
had it been as described, that would have been no precedent
for what had been done. In the records of the year 1812
he could find no trace of the matter referred to. But he
believed he had found upon what the Right Hen. Baronet's
statement had been based. In a speech which Sir J. Hip-
pesley made in 1812 upon a motion of Hr. Grattan's for a
Committee of the whole House on the Catholic claims, he
had entered into a detail of a communication which he had
had some years before with Rome ; but in thoss
negotiations there had been strict conditions attached ;
and they had been carried on on the principle of perfect do-
mestic security from all foreign encroachment. Sir J. Hip-
peeley had always pointed to a veto as indispensable in any
arrangemeuts which might be made. But were they now to
ba told that the Pope was justified in adopting
only that part of the proposition which might suit his own
view, without any reference to the conditions which had
been originally attached to it.—(Hear, hear.) With respect
to the position of the Roman Catholic Church, it should
never be forgotten that that Church, unlike the Wesleyan
Conference and the various Dissenting bodies in this country,
claimed dominion over every baptised person. It was
nothing to say that that was an empty claim. The time
might come when, under favourable circnmstances with the
Church of Rome, unchanging and unchangeable, they might
yet see a Marian persecution. In pressing forward that
measure they were acting in strict conformity with the
Act of 1829, which extended full religious equality to our
Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, while it did not leave
them exempt from all restraint in their connexion with the
see of Rome. lie was sure that the distinguished men
who had mainly contributed to the attainment of Roman
Catholic emancipation, had never thought of debarring
themselves from the tight of asserting the independ-
ence of this nation against the encroachments of Papal
power, as it had been asserted in every period of
our history.—(Hear, hear.) Ile said that that was a Bill
opposed to the principle of religious freedom, and one tending
to coerce Roman Catholics. It had been said that the Go-
vernment would be bound to vote against the first clause of
that Bill, because in Ireland the adoption of the first clause
would have the same effect as if the two other clauses had
been retained in the measure. Now, he said that that was a
statement unsupported by proof, and in any case he believed
that the Roman Catholics in Ireland had very little reason
to feel thankful to the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone
(Mr. Keogh) for the ingenuity he had displayed in attempt-
ing to show that they were fettered by a clause in the Eman-
cipation Act in a manner which had not been previously ima-
gined. It had been frequently said in the course of these
debates that that was a quarrel originating in the jealousy
entertained by the prelates of the Established Church towards
the-newly-created Catholic hierarchy. But the petitions to
that House, and the addresses to the Crown, which had been
presented rom laymen in every part of the country, clearly
showed that the feeling which existed upon the subject was
one of a national character, and that both Churchmen and
Dissenters had felt that aggression, not in their merely reli-
gious capacities, but as Ense,fishmen, animated by the same
spirit which had induced their forefathers to impose barriers
against the encroachments of the see of Rome.— (Hear, hear,
and cries for a division.) The Right Hon. Gentleman op-
posite (Mr. Gladstone) had taunted his Noble Friend at the
bead ot the Government with having deserted upon that oc-
casion the liberal sentiments he had enunciated on the hust-
ings of the city of London. But let him tell the Right
Hon. Gentleman that the citizens of London had, in their ad-
dress to the Throne, clearly expressed their views upon that
question, and that while av,wing their uncompromising ad-
herence to the principles of civil and religious liberty, they
had asked, in the name of that very liberty that some measure
should be adopted for the purpose of putting a restraint on
the exercise of a foreign authority in these realms.—(He r,
hear, and cries for a division.) In conclusion he should
say that these territorial titles, which were said to be but
empty names, were the badges and symbols of a jurisdiction
claimed to be exercised by the sole and undivided authority
of the Court of Rome. What her Majesty's Government
asked them to do was to place the brand of illegality on these
badges and symbols. They might reject that Bill in accord-
ance with the recommendation and the hopes cf his Right
Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon and ot those who acted
with him, without any alternative measure having been
offered to them. They might encourage the Court of Rome
to fresh acts of aggression, and lead to the belief, as asserted
by Cardinal Wiseman and others, that the feeling of the
country upon the subject was only a temporary and popular
effervescence. They might create what he felt convinced
would be a false impression—that the Commons of England
were indifferent to the honour of the Crown and the inde-
pendence of the nation. But in pursuing that course they
might excite throughout the country that great religious
war which the Hou. Member for Liverpool seemed so eager
to rush into, but which he (Sir G. Grey) for one most ear-
nestly deprecated. They might reject that measure, and
by that means contributed to the introduction of a new Bill,
with far more stringent provisions ; but he sincerely trusted
that they would, on the contrary, maintain en that occasion
the character handed down to them by their ancestors, and
manife.t a legitimate jealousy of foreign interference in the
affairs of this country. He believed that by passing that Bill
by a large and decisive majority, they would best consult the
honour of the Sovereign, the independence of the country,
and the sacred cause of civil and religious liberty.--(Cheers,
and cries for a division, mingled with calls for Mr. atchell,
followed by come laughter.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY here rose, but was
informed by

The SPEAKER that he had not then a right to address
the House, ast he had already spoken in moving the amend-
ment.

Mr. S. HEIMERT said he wished to saga few words upon
a matter which related to himself personally, and which hay
been refarred to by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary
for the Home Department.
The Right Hon. Baronet had
read two documents for which he had held him (Mr. S.
responsible. Now he hadobjected
Herbert)
he had to the first of
these documents, and d never even he ird of the other
until it had been read bye heßight Honourable Baronet, it
having, as he supposed, en adopted after he hai left the
meeting. What he had done
was_to have moved the reso-
lution which the Right Hon.
oo2darbonet had read.— (Loud
cries of " Hear, bear.')
He 3.
t Outyt that resolution; but
he had also endeavoured to point
House, that meeting, as he
had endeavoured to point out to . . that a spiritual
aggression ought to be met by spiritual means, and not by
Acts of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. HOWARD rose, amidst loud groans, aea cries for
red him unable to a diviAion, which for some time rendered
to reply ad.
dress the House. He said that he did not mean
of three-Ri at
that moment at any length to the observ. tiones
Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the flew Department.
against the
But he slionid at once protest most indignantly.
ter
imputation that the Cathtlics of England and the sister
._
country claimed by the institution of a hierarchy any tem-
poral authority. And still more in.; ignantly should he pro-
test against the statement of the Right Hun. Baronet, that
he was about to place a brand upon one-third of the inhabi-
tants of the British empire.—(Hear, hear, and cries for a
division•) With that notice of what had fallen from the
Right Hon. Baronet, he should for the moment be satisfied.
On the motion for going into Committee on the Bill he
should probably take the liberty of expressing at length
his opinions upon the whole question.—( Renewed cries for a
vision.)
Sir G. GREY said that his Hon. Friend had misunder-
stood him. He had not said anything about branding one-
third of his fellevr-subjects. But he had said that those
titles were to badges and symbols of 'jurisdiction claimed
LO be exerciaed by virtue of the pole and undivided authority

HIGH WATER Al LONDON BRIDGE

Trans DAT —Morning 35 rain. after 8 { Evening 19 rein. after 9
To-Moanow—Morning 2 rain. after 10 1 Evening 41 min. after 10

cause he believed the Roman Catholic religion to be so
utterly opposed to the liberties of mankind that he would
do nothing that should render him even indirectly ob-
noxious to the charge of countenancing it.
Mr. Scum.v and Mr. IlumE opposed the Bill.

Sir F. THEsIGER would vote for the second reading
of the measure, because he thought some legislation on
the subject necessary; but he considered the Bill totally
inadequate to meet the necessities of the case. In Com-
mittee, however, an opportunity would be afforded
them of amending it so as to make it a really efficient
measure.

After a few words in explanation from Sir JAMES
GRAHAM,

Mr. GLADSTONE admitted that the language used
by Cardinal WISE3IAN was offensive, yet he had
done nothing but what was perfectly legal. There-
fore he was opposed to any legislation on the subject.
He considered that if we felt ourselves aggrieved by any
act of the POPE, the proper course to have pursued
would have been to have dispatched a diplomatic agent
to Rome. This appointment of a hierarchy was a spi-
ritual matter, with which Parliament had no right to
interfere, and was calculated rather to diminish the
power of the POPE than to increase it.
Mr. DISRAELI denied that the POPE was so powerless
as had been represented; he possessed an army of a
million priests, always ready to obey his commands. He
considered that if synodal action was permitted to the
Church of Rome it should also be permitted to the
Church of England. He should vote for the second
reading of the Bill, but would not pledge himself to
support the third reading unless the measure should be
rendered much more stringent in Committee.
Sir G. GREY replied, and after a few words from Mr.
P. HOWARD the House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... ... 438
Against it ... 95
Majority in favour of the Bill ... —343
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday.
The House adjourned to Thursday.

At length the weary debate on the motion for the
second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assump-
tion Bill has been brought to a conclusion, and at
three o'clock this morning the representatives of the
Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, determined,
by a majority of 438 votes to 95, that they
would not tamely permit their SOVEREIGN to
be insulted or their country to be oppressed
by the partizans of absolutism and obscurantism,
the agents of Austria and of Rome. The tone of
the debate last evening was of a much more
manly, much more energetic, and much more sa-
tisfactory character than has been that of
any debate preceding. The speeches of Sir
F. THESIGER and of Mr. DISRAELI were
almost all that could be desired, and contrasted most
favourably with the Jesuitical special pleading
of Mr. GLADSTONE, and the almost trimming
speech of Sir GEORGE GREY. Entirely do
we concur with Sir FREDERICK THESIGER
in opinion, that this is but the first of a
series of encroachments, and that if we do not now
stand in the breach we shall entail a fearful struggle
on our posterity, and heartily do we reiterate his
exhortation to grasp the nettle danger boldly
if we would pluck from it the flower
safety. As to the threat of a rebellion
in Ireland, which seems to have frightened Sir JAMES
GRAHAM from his propriety, we treat that absurdity
even as Mr. DISRAELI treated it last night, and can
assure the Netherby Baronet that the people of England
will never consider as "the pilot to weather the storm"
a lubber who strikes his colours to a set of mutineers.
But while Mr. DISRAELI administered a well-merited
castigation to Sir JAMES GRAHAM and those who op-
posed all legislation on this subject, he did not spare
the Government. As he justly remarked, the mea-
sure had been introduced by a speech which had pro-
duced a considerable effect. But the proposition was
not equal to the proem, and unless Lord JOHN
RUSSELL is prepared in committee to introduce such
alterations into the measure as shall make it
equal to the proem, he must, at whatever sacrifice, be
driven from office to make way for those who will.
This is a grave, a serious, a national mat-
ter, in comparison with which all other
considerations sink into insignificance; it must not be
treated after the usual Whig unenergetic and nullifying
fashion. As in the days of MILTON, the ques-
tion is—

" To save free Gospel from the paw
Of hireling wolves, whose conscience is their maw."

Lord Jowl t”sELL, the other day, declared his
concurrence with LocKE and MILTON, and
HAMPDEN and PYM. Will he, casting aside
all other considerations, be in this nine-
teenth century what HAMPDEN, and PYM,
and MILTON, and LOCKE were in the sixteenth
century ? Wia he be the leader of the great Pro-
testant movement ? If he will, the Protestant people
of these realms will follow him toe" the
last gasp with truth and loyalty," but if he hesitate,
they will at once cast him off, for in this controversy we
all feel that he " who is not for us is against us."

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of yesterday.
In the National Assembly, the motion of M.
CHAUFFOUR, for the re-organization of the National
Guard of Strasburg, was rejected by a majority of
445 to 223, after a very animated discussion.
The Presse says—
We have reason to believe that the projected Minis-
terial combination, of which M. Odilon Barrot was to be
the centre, has completely failed, owing to that gentle-
man's refusing to have M. Baroche for colleague. The
most probable combination at present is the return of the
late Ministry, minus M. Bonjean, replaced in the Minis-
try of Agriculture and Commerce by M. Quentin-Bau-
chard, and M. Magne retaining the Public Works in the
place of M. Bineau."
The Committee has recommended the Assembly
not to take into consideration the proposition of M.
EMILE DE GIRARDIN for the return of the BOURBONS
and of the transported of June.
We find the following in the Evenement:—
.

"A report was current to•day at the Assembly, that
the Minister of the Interior bad received by telegraph
an account of disturbances et Grenoble. A manifesta-
tion is said to have been made in favour of M. F. Tau-
lier, who had been recently suspended by the Prefect
from his functions as mayor.• These disturbances are
said to have been followed by several arrests."
There was scarcely any business transacted at the
Bourse. The Five per Cents. opened at 941. 40c., and
closed at 94f. 25c.; the Three per Cents. closed at 57f.
90c.; Orleans Railroad Shares, 8951.; Rouen, 6601.;
Great Northern, 481 f. 25c. ; Avignon, 207 f. 50c.;
Vierzon, 447 f.; Basle, 158 f. 75e.; Bordeaux, 4061.
25c.; Paris and Strasburg, 3751.; Tours and Nantes,
2761. 25c.

BUSINESS DONE IN FOREIGN RAILWAYS AT THE
LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE, MARCH 25.
Boulogne and Amiens, 10—Luxembourg, I%—Ditto, 2%
—Maria Antonia, 7 Ditto, New, 234—Namur and Liege,
814—Northern of France, 15—Orleans and Bordeaux, 4%
—Paris and Rouen, 261,6—Paris and Strasburg, 10X—
Rouen and Havre, 11%—Sambre and Meuse, 4%—Tours
and Nantes, 64—West Flanderv, 24.

SPAIN.

Madrid journals of the 20th have arrived.

Their contents are unimportant.
MADRID BOLSA, MARCH 20.—Three per Cents.
35i ; Five per Cents., 174. Exchange on London,
50 70 paper.

CONSECRATION OF THE BISHOP OF NOVA SCOTIA.
—The ceremony of the consecration of Dr. Binney, of Wor-
cester Col age, Oxford, to the bishopric of Nova Scotia and
its dependencies, was performed yesterday morning in the
chapel of Lambeth Palace. The service was performed by
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Chi-
chester, and Oxford ; the Rev. Dr. Binney (father of the new
bishop), the Rev. Dr. Gonldburn, and the Rsv. Mr. Thomas,
chaplain to the Archbishop. The whole of it was conducted
in the most simple manner, no chanting or singing, but every
part read—very different from the "histrionic" manner, as it
has been called, of performing the services of the Church in
other places. The chapel was pretty well filled with visitors,
among whom were many clergymen.
FATAL BOILER EXPLOSION AT MANCHESTER.-
About three o'clock yesterday afternoon a boiler burst in
Riga-street, Manchester, which has caused, there is reason
to fear, a serious loss of life. The building was a factory,
rented by Mr. W. C. Williamson from Mr. Hardman, who
sublet it, with steam power supplied by a 30-horse boiler,
working a 25-horse power steam-engine. The building wah
applied to various purposes, and about 50 persons were em-
ployed in the whole by the several tenants. As we have
stated, the explosion took place about three o'clock, and at
the time our parcel left the whole neighbourhood was a
scene of the utmost alarm and confusion, and it was impos-
sible to obtain in time any very clear or connected account
of the accident. One man had bees taken out dead, and
the persons employed in searching the ruins had just dis-
covered a second man frightfully mutilated. Four persons
had been conveyed to the Infirmary badly wounded, and
two of them, it was feared, could scarcely survive the in-
juries they had sustained. At the time this report left it
was not accurately known how many people were among
the ruins. The engineer escaped and was seen to creep
through a window of the lower story soon after the explo-
sion. The boiler was upon the high pressure principle, and
at the time it burst the engine had been stopped to repair a
strap.

SHORT SPEECHES IN PARLIAMENT.—Among the
new rules which have been established for the conduct of the
business of the New Brunswick House of Assembly, is one
which limits the duration of each member's speech, on any
Particular citielti9Dl t 9 half a hour.