The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-15 00:00:00

S NI

THE

their episcopal functions, their office would be altogether in-
complete, and consequently the rites and ceremonies of the
Catholic Church would be totally neglected. He was aware
that it had been said, and would be again said, that there
was no necessity for bishops, as vicars-apostolic had already,
for the last 809 years, discharged the duty of bishops in this
country; but it should be borne in mind that those bishops
believe that they have by divine institution a power to go •
vern their awn society— ( Heart— he therefore thought it
better that the concerns of the Roman Catholic Church
should be governed by the ecclesiastical power of bishops,
which power actually exis s and cannot be denied, rather
than to be administered as they have been for the last WO
years, since the time of Benedict IV., under the guidance
and control of a Pope of Rome. He did not see any reason
why the canon law should not be administered by the Pope
in matters relevant to the Roman Catholic Church, although
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) stated it as his opinion,
after having examined the Acts by which the diocesan form
of government had been exercised, thai the introduction of
such forms and such canons was opposed to the rights and
constitution of this country.—( Hear.) What had the Pope
done ? As a foreign power, vet a spiritual head of the
Roman Catholic Church, he had assumed the authority of
erecting sees, of filling those sees with his own nomination,
and of issuing authority by which diocesan bishops might
exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But then the Noble
Lord (Lord John Russell) had said that, for a subject of the
Crown of this country to assume a title, was opposed to the
rights and prerogative of the Sovereign, who was solely in-
vested, by her authority, to make such a partition of this
country. He should add, that the Noble Lord did not confine
himself to the creation of ecclesiastical sees, but he went
so far as to bring a charge against those prelates of parcel-
ling out the territorial districts of the country ; and in sup.;
port of his (Lord John Russell's) assertion, he stated that
the public law was on his side, and that that public law
prohibited the Pope from divining the country with the
Sovereign. But he (Mr. Peel) should say that that public
law guaranteed the right of communication between the
Pope, on the one side, and the priests and laity, on
the other.—(Bear, hear.) He saw a very great and
enormous evil in any legislation of that kind ; for it
it proceeded a little farther, the act would be stigmatised
as infamous. (Cheers.) Again, the Attorney-General
stated that the consequences of that Bill would be to pre-
vent synodical action, which he inferred, from the address
of Cardinal Wiseman. as likely to be introduced into this
country, but he (Mr. Peel) for his part, doubted very much
if the measure would have the effect of preventing synods,
as the Roman Catholic prelates, priests, and laity, would
evade the provisions of the Bill by every possible means. It
had been also said that the feeling on the part of Ireland
relative to that measure had been very strong, as being an
attempt to deprive them of the long-enjoyed rights of
canon law, and, on the other hand, the Noble Lord the
Member for Bath (Lord Ashley) said that the avowed
object of establishing diocesan divisions and episcopal
jurisdiction was the introduction of the canon laws, and
the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) had on that occasion
brought to light a number of passages from that code
of the most disparaging character, though Lord Stowell,
Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, while presiding in
London, passed the highest eulogium on this code of canon
laws. When the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) stated that the
canon law was opposed to the common and statute law'of this
country, he should recollect that there was a considerable
difference between the canon law and the ecclesiastical law
of this country. When the Hon. and Learned Member for
Oxford (Mr. P. Weed) said that our Consuls-General exer-
cised a jurisdiction over the British subjects in Turkey, by
virtue of the treaties with Turkey and the Levant Company,
he should have considered that the Pope did not at any time
give or receive diplomatic correspoudence, and that there-
fore there was no analogy whatever between the two cases,
and he would add, moreover, that the code of canon law
only prevailed over those Roman Catholics who paid vo-
luntary obedience to it, for there could be no coercion
in a free country such as this.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He deeply regretted thst the bishops of the Roman Ca-
tholic Church in Ireland should have assembled for the
purpose of depriving the children of their diocese of
that beneficent education which a paternal Government
afforded them. If it were the wish of the Government to
prevent synodical action, he considered that some other
means should be adopted besides the present measure, and
he should also add, that he did not wish to trust the
security of the Protestant religion to a mere Act of Parlia-
ment, but he relied on the power of controversy, on the
good sense of the people, and on the belief that the tenets
of the Church of Rome cannot be upheld on the warranty
of Scripture, and more especially on the attachment of the
people to their creed and their clergy. as has been strongly
exemplified in the building of churches, and the erection
and endowment of schools, and other beneficent acts; and
he felt assured that the Church could not only main-
tain her ground without artificial aid or support, but that she
could even make way against her enemies. In his opinion
the Church of England had nothing to fear from the Church
of Rome, for every man had a right to judge by his own
interpretation of the Scripture, which ever renders that
Church unassailable and impregnable against any assault.
He should, therefore say, that there was no reason not to
grant toleration to all religious denominations.—(Cheers.)
Sir J. DUKE felt under great disadvantage in addressing
the House at all times; and that disadvantage was certainly
not lessened on the present occasion by his rising as he did
immediately after the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had
just sat down. Indeed, had he consulted merely his own
feelings he would gladly have contented himself with giving
a silent vote on the present question; but, having the
honour to represent au important constituency, which had
been referred to by the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr.
Bright), he felt it necessary to say a few words with which he
hoped the House would indulge him. But, before he referred
to the observations of the Hon. Member for Manchester, he
begged to say that something like an unfair censure had
been cast upon the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment for the letter which he had addressed to the Bishop of
Durham. It had been said that that letter bad been the
means of occasioning the meetings which had taken place in
London and throughout the country, and that the Noble
Lord, being in want of "political capital," found it necessary
to call upon the people to come forward and resist Papal
aggression. It had also been
.alleged that that
letter was published on the day before the sth
of November, in order to excite the city on the oc-
casion of the annual processions. Now, he (Sir J. Duke)
happened to be abroad at the time that letter was published,
but, on his return, he took the opportunity of going over the
public papers to see what course the City of London and the
public bad taken upon this important question in his ab-
s epee ; and he found that, so early as the 14th of October,
nearly the whole of the newspapers of the capital had united
in calling upon the public and the Government to resist the
Papal aggression. He found articles to the same effect in
those papers on the 21st and 22d of October. On the 23d
appeared a letter from a gentleman at Exeter, desiring to
know whether the Noble Lord and the Government sup-
ported the appointment of Dr. Wiseman. On the vsth the
clergy of Westminster met, and addressed the Bishop of
London. On the 30th the inhabitants of the important
parish of St. George, in the metropolis, met for the sense
object. On the 31st the London clergy also met, and ad-
dressed the Bishop. On the 28th a reply appeared to the
Exeter letter, from the secretary of the Premier. to the effect
that neither directly nor indirectly bad the Noble Lord sanc-
tioned the appointment of Dr. Wiseman. On the 2d of No-
vember he found that the great parish of Marylebone, in
vestry assembled, protested against the Papal aggression.
Ile found also that the parish of Stepney met about the
same time, and that similar meetings were held at Gloucester,
Canterbury, Dover, Deal, Southampton, Worcester, Reading,
and other places—all before the appearance of the Noble
Lord's letter.—(Hear, hear.) That letter appeared only on
the 7th of November, so that it was an error to say that it
was published on the 4th for the purpose of exciting the
public on the following day.—( Hear, hear.) On the ith of
November took place the meeting of the Corporation of
London ; but he could assure the House that the Noble
Lord's letter had nothing to do with that meeting, which
was held on the usual day, and had been summoned a week
before.— (Hear.) Being a member of thet corporation be was
unwilling to say anything about its proceedings, except to re-
mind the House that they had the high honour of approach-
ing the Sovereign on great and important occasions; and,
although he had been twenty years connected with the cor-
poration, he never remembered it availing itself of that privi-•
lege except in the present instance—(llear, hear)—and he
presumed that nothing but the consideration that it was a
case of unusual importance would have induced then to do so.
--(Hear, hear) But although he would say nothing more
of the proceedings of the corporation, he might be allowed
to refer to the great and importaut meeting of bankers, mer-
chants, and traders of the city of London.—(Hear, hear.)
Among other meetings which bad taken place throughout
the country, there was one, he believed, of the enlightened
constituents of the Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roe-
buck), who had not only addreseed the Queen, but had
passed a vote of thanks to the Noble Lord. (Hear, hear.)
Now, those meetings had been destribed as the result of in-
tolerance, ignorance, and bigotry. He (Sir J. Duke) did not
know whether that was the case or not ; but he believed that
if those addresses to the Queen had been petitions to the
House of Commons in support of some favourite scheme of
free-trade policy, certain Hon. Members wouid have talked
loudly enough of the dignity of the ancient corporation of
London, the great weight of the merchants, bankers, and
traders of the first commercial city in the world, and the in-
telligent and irresistible voice of the country.— (Hear.) He
did not know what might be the result of this debate; but he
was quite certain, that by whatever combination of parties
the measure might ultimately be defeated, the feeling of the
country would rally round the Noble Lord and his Govern-
ment, and, in the language of the magnificent speech with
which he had introduced the measure, would show them
that they were ready to resist the Papal aggression " in all
points and with all their power."—(hear, hear.) With re-
gard to the remarks which the Hon. Member for Manchester
(Mr. Bright) had made respecting the Rev. Dr. Russell, he
begged to say that he had known that Rev. Gentleman for
many years, and that a more upright, exemplary, and pious
clergyman could not be found in the Church or country
—and, when he found his name mentioned as having had
recourse to or sanctioned the exactions which had taken
place in a meeting-house in his parish, he felt it due to him
to say, that he had no more to do with that transaction than
the Hon. Member himself; and that the persons who were
alone responsible for it were the parochial authorities acting
under a warrant from one of the. magistrates of the city of
London, than whom he would venture to say there was no
set of men more kind or considerate in, the discharge of such
delicate and difficult duties.—(hear, hear.)
Mr. B. WALL wished to state to the Hotise the reason
why he was about to take the unusual course of opposing
the introduction of a Government measure. A great deal
had been said about the unanimity of feeling prevailing in
the country. Doubtless the meetings had been numerous,
and the public mind had been much excited, but the chief
advantage gained by the demonstration was that it had'
elicited from all parts of the country the value which was
attached to the rights "of private Judgment, and showed
i
Royal supremacy or Prerogative being
invaded. It ought not to be forgotten that, in dealing with
the remotest r eady the
iedea of the people were to write forward when there was
Protestant states which had ne concordat the Pope could
only proceed in two ways—either by excommunicating 'or
ignoring them ; and of these ,two courses the Pope had
gracious towards the Noble Lord. He had
is Bill would have embodied the minimum of
adopted gracious
this
intereference ; but after listening to the speech of the Ate
torney-General he was convinced that it amounted to the
• maximum of persecution.—(An ironical cheer from Lord J.
Russell.) The more bold and honest, the more true and
faithful the Catholic, the more bitter would the per -
aecution he. It was the first aggressive Parliamentary mea-
sure since 1829, and was opposed to all the declarations
made by the First Minister. The Noble Lord, it „„red,
had changed his mind. Why, then, did he not say as much
to his'old friend and ally the Pope ? (Cheers and laughter.)
The Pope certainly could not, by any possibility, conceive
from what had already been permitted in Ireland that hie
appointment of bishops and archbishops and the establish-
ment of an hierarchy would cause so much surprise and in-
dignation to the Government. Ile felt bound to say that the
bishops of the Established Church in this country had not in
any way interfered improperly with the expression of public
opinion. The Member for Ayrshire had told theta that his
county had not petitioned in favour of these measures of the
Noble Lord ' • but the Hon. Gentleman might have added the
important fact, that scarcely any of: the Scottish counties
had petitioned Parliament upon the subject; and with, re-
gard:to Tractarianism he might have stated also, that though
there were cues in Scotland in which those opinions were

LONDON,

held, and where public worship was carried on in the same
manner as that with which the Noble Lord had been so well
acquainted, yet not an instance was known of a Presbyterian
in that country having been converted to those opinions.
The reasons which had been put forward for the present Bill
were, that there had been great public d"monstrations
with reference to the act of the Pope, that the Archbishop
of Canterbury had stated that he desired such a measure, that
Archbishop Cullen had been selected instead of archbishop
somebody else, and that the Synod of Thurles had met and
considered the quest-on of the occupancy of land and the
system of education; but, in his (Mr. Wall's) judgment,
these reasons were not sufficient to justify the Noble Lord
in changing the line of conduct which he had hitherto uni-
formly pursued, or in introducing a Bill which would prac-
tically have the effect of making every man (Roman
Catholic) a Jesuit, and every priest a spy!—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Loi d had tried the experiment how far he could
govern this country without any Bills of pains and penal-
ties, and in that course he had been eminently successful.
But now, to his (Mr. Wall's) deep regret, he was about to
swerve from the principles which had heretofore guided him,
and proceed in an opposite direction. When the. Noble
Lord came to put the measure into operation in Iseland, he
believed he would experience extreme difficulty in the at-
tempt to do so. The Irish Members were not at all inclined
to support the views which the Noble Lord had taken, and
unless a law of this sort were passed, not by a bare majority,
but with something of unanimity of feeling in this House, the
Noble Lord would find that he had embarked upon a dan-
gerous experiment, which would redound neither to the
safety of the state nor the peace of the country.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said, before he entered on the
subject before the House, he had to refer to some animad-
versions which had been passed on the speech of his lion.
and Learned Friend and colleague (Mr. Napier) by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh). The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had accused his Hon. Friend and
colleague of being secretary to the Brunswick Club in Ire-
land, which had for its object the opposing the Emancipa-
tion Act of IL9. Now, his Hon. Friend had no recollection
of being so.
Mr. KEOGH—Dees he deny it ? (Hear.)
Mr. HAMILTON—However that might be, it could not
be said that the club was instituted for the purpose of vio-
lating or resisting the law, and it was dissolved immediately
after the passing of the Act. His Hon. Friend, in 1832, was
secretary to a party, which bad for its object the ameliora-
tion of the condition of the Irish people, but he had no re-
collection of being secretary to the one alluded to. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman also stated that his lion.
Friend had said that Catholics were admissible to the ho-
nours of the University of Dublin, and that he (Mr. Keogh)
would show the hypocrisy which dictated that statement.
The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Keogh) had adverted to a state-
ment made by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Napier) that in the
offices connected with the law courts of Ireland, a preference
had been shown by the present Government in favour of Ro-
man Catholics over their Protestant fellow-countrymen. Now
he, on his own part, could fairly say that since the passing of
the Emancipation Act no difference should be made between
Roman Catholics and Protestants in their appointment to
offices in the gift of the State, and, the only question was,
whether the best men should be appointed.—(Hear, hear.)
But at the same time lie would ask why, in the Irish ap-
pointments to judicial offices, such men as Mr. Henn and Mr.
Bennett had been overlooked in these appointments, except
that they were Protestants? The Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Meath (Mr. Grattan), had made a statement
to the effect, that the late Chancellor of Ireland, Sir Edward
Sugden, had recognised Dr. Croly as Archbishop of Ar-
magh and Primate of all Ireland. Now, being anxious to
set the Hon. Gentleman right, he was able to 'state 'that
although Br. Croly was thus designated in a report in
Chancery, it had never received the sanction of the Chan-
cellor, the report never having come under his cognisance.
However, the real question before the House was, whether
her Majesty's Government had shown sufficient grounds to
call on the House to grant them permission to introduce this
Bill. It appeared to him that the recent act of the Pope was
a violation of the law of nations, and certainly of the laws of
Europe. that those who had carried out the Pope's brief
had violated the spirit, if .not the letter of the law, and
that an indignity had been cast on the Sovereign of these
realms.—(Hear, hear.) He, therefore, thought her Ma-
jesty's Government were quite justified in introducing the
present Bill, which it was inconvenient to discuss until it was
brought before the House. He would, however, admit that
all legislation on this matter should be framed so as not to
be insulting, while, at the same time it was not inoperative,
and that it should in no wise trench on that settled principle
of the Constitution, that they should not infringe on the
free and religious exercise of the Roman Catholic religion.
If he, as a humble individual, might be permitted to make a
defence of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he would say
that when the Noble Lord admitted his confidence in Roman
Catholics had been mistimed, it did not occur to him that no
such defence was necessary, and that he might be fully jus-
tified in resisting Papal aggression, while he advocated mea-
sures in favour of civil and religious liberty.—(Hear.)
Mr. SADLEIR challenged Mr. Napier to deny that he
had been either secretary to, or a member of, the Brunswick
Club in Ireland; and, in answer to Mr. Hamilton's state-
ment, said he had no hesitation in asserting that these clubs
were illegal associations, and that they were regarded by
every statesman as subjecting their members to the penalties
which the law justly assigned to illegal associations. With
respect to what the Noble Lord had said on the subject of
the proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants employed
iu public offices in Ireland, he (Mr. Sadleir) had always ab-
stained from noticing that painful and invidious topic;: but
the Noble Lord attached great importance to what he had
done for Roman Catholics, and he had no doubt, without intend-
ing it, lent his countenance to the fallacy which the Hon. and
Learned Member for the University of 'Dublin (Mr. Napier)
would have them believe, that Protestantism was a disqualifi-
cation for office in Ireland. In refutation of that statement
he ( Mr. Sadleir) boldly asserted, what must be well known
to the Noble Lord, that the heads of every public department
were all Protestants. The Hon. Gentleman here read a list
of the law officers, judges, assistant barristers, masters in
Chancery, and others employed in the public service in
Ireland, together with the amount paid in public salaries,
tor the purpose of showing that the proportion of Roman
Catholics to Protestants to whom Government patronage
was extended was exceedingly small, and that notwith-
standing the declaration of the present Viceroy, that in con
(erring the patronage of the Crown he would be guided
solely bi professional merit. He would not dwell on
that painful and invidious subject. It was not the Roman
Catholics who had courted the introduction of it in connexion
with the unfortunate project of the Government; but, as it
had been introduced, be had been desirous of removing and
erroneous impressions on the matter. IVith respect to the
proposed Bill of the Noble Lord, and the cry of "No Popery,"
with which they had hounded on the scum of the people against
their countrymen, he reminded them of the opinion of one of
the greatest patriots of their country, as to the inutility of
such factitious aids to repress the free development and per-
fect organisation of a rival creed. And to his Roman Ca-
tholic countrymen and fellow-subjects and believers lie would
say, that at the present critical juncture they ought to be
vigilant and firm. He felt an honest and a national pride in
belonging to that body, so loyal and so faithful, notwithstanding
the slanders that had been heaped upon their doctrines and
their religion. He felt an honest pride in belonging to that
body, always distinguished for its allegiance to their Sove-
reign and for its love of peace. To the denunciations from the
platform which had been directed against his religion, his
reply was, that one of the most distinguished of' their own
divines had paid a just tribute to all that was admirable and
holy in the faith he professed, and showed how the mission.
aries of the Roman Catholic Church were to be found in
every clime, scaling the steepest rampart of infidelity, and
triumphantly planting upon its highest citadel the banner of
faith. As for the boasted efforts of the Noble Lord in favour
of Roman Catholic freedom, he had to say that it was not to
the isolated efforts of any individual —it was not to the Noble
Lord that they owed the legitimate advantages they pos-
sessed ; no, they had overcome the spirit of religious intole-
rance by subduing and controlling their own passions, by
their dignified resignation, by their firmness and fortitude
under years of persecution and oppression, guided by the
energies and unrelaxing efforts, by the towering genius, by
the constitutional knowledge, by the legal acumen, by theun-
deviating allegiance and fidelity of their own O'Connell.
Thus it was that they had worked out their own emancipa-
tion and the gradual resurrection of their country. Ile caked
HOD. Gentlemen to bear in mind before they gave their sup-
port to the proposed measure, that the moment might be
nearer at hand than they imagined when they might be
called on to decide whether they would gradually sink into
an insignificance more obscure than any from which they
bad emerged, or should he triumphantly conducted to na-

tional concord and peace.
Mr. M. GIBSON observed that he was in Parliament
since 1837 with a short interval of absence, and the present
was the first occasion on which he had been invited to em-
bark in a policy involving principles which he considered
were embodied in the proposition of the Noble Lord, and he
was justified, therefore, in hesitating before he took the first
step in the matter, and in satisfying himself that the course
he took was founded on pure considerations. He had been
frequently asked to oppose the removal of disabilities from
various portions of his fellow-countrymen who had dis•
abilities laid upon them in consequence of their religions
tenets. But the present was the first time, he repeated,
that he had been invited to impose disabilities upon men
on account of their religious opinions. The proposal before
the House was one calling on them to go out and impose
penalties a men for merely carrying out those religious
arrangements which they considered best adapted to the
ends they had in view in the practice of their religion.
He (Mr. Gibson) could scarcely suppose the measure was a
serious one, such were the reports that had been circulated.
In the Times newspaper, which was supposed to shadow
the views of Government, it was hinted that Ireland
was to be left out of the Bill. If that was to be the
case, It would be better for the Government to be open and
fair in the matter, and not introduce Ireland at all unless
they intended to include it bond fide. But it seemed to him
a thing most strange to place the Roman Catholics of Eng-
land and Ireland in a worse position than the Rinnan
Catholics of the other parts of her Majesty's dominions.
If it was the duty of the Legislature to prevent episcopal
organisation in England, it was equally their duty to prevent
it in Australia and in the North American colonies.—(Hear,
hear.) The interference of foreign potentates was equally to
be resisted in the colonies as in the United Kingdom. If it
had lbeen a matter of local or municipal arrangement,
he admitted it might be left to any particular colony; and
that, perhaps, in such circumstances, it would not be wise for
Parliament to interfere ; but if it were the fact, as stated by
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, that the ap •
pointment of bishops by the Pope was an outrage on the
Queen's supremacy—a violation of the law of nations—
then it was the duty of the Government not to shrink from
defending her Majesty's rights in all her Majesty's posses-
sions as well as in the United Kingdom.—(Hear, hear.)
This fact made him (Mr. M. Gibson) conclude, that
those who proposed this Bill were not sincere when they
stated that it was based upon secular and merely
political considerations, and on those considerations alone
it was applied to this country. The House was invited
to come to a decision on the insolent and indignant aggres-
sion. He (Mr. Gibson) did not see any insult ; and he
agreed with the Bishop of St. David's that there was no in-
sult in the matter. They were constantly told that those
who supported the measure were the strongest adiocates for
religious liberty ; and they were asked not to be alarmed, for
the statute was not a penal one beyond the face of it, as those
gentlemen would never impose a penal law on the exercise of
religious liberty. Nothing, however, was more common in
former periods than for men who opposed the removal of the-
disabilities from Catholics to designate themselves as the
advocates of religious liberty, and even to assert that it was
because they were so that they opposed all concession to
men whom they professed to believe held a divided allegiance.
Lord Eldon and other great authorities of that class might
be quoted as instances. He (Mr. Gibson) would not, there-
fore, be deterred from scrutinising the measure because its pro-
moters said that they were not adverse to religious liberty,
and because their friends insisted on it that they were its ad-
vocates. They were told that the country had taken up the
question in a similar ' spirit, and that the proceed-
ings that had taken place had nothing whatever to do with
the religion of the Roman Catholics. Looking, however, at
the proceedings at these meetings, he found that in the great
majority of thern religion was' the only reason which was
urged for the enactment of this penal law. Dr. Cumming, a
great authority, said in his lecture on Papal aggression, that
" the teaching of Cardinal-Wiseman was'the best reason for
the protest against his intrusion." It was the teaching of