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

tence either of omission or of addition, or defect either of our I
intention, or any other whatsoever ; but shalglways be valid
and in force, and shall take effect in all particulars, tied be ,
inviolably observed; all general or special enactments, not-
withstanding, whether apostolic, or issued in synodal, pro-
vincial, and universal councils; notwithstanding also all
rie4te and privileges of the ancient sees of England."
--(Hear, hear.) Now the former declaration is upon Dr.
Wiseman's authority alone, but no doubt authorised by the
See of Rome, and that is a declaration that our Protestant
arta:Ai/hops and bishops do not exist.—(Hear.) This re-
serlpt is a substitution of the Archbishop of Westminster, of
the ISellop of Southwark and others, for the Bishops of the
Protestant Chattel, who are thus declared to have been null
and void and to be entirely abrogated and annulled.—
(gear, hear.). Now, I ask, does this fairly come within the
scope of a foreign Sovereign? My Right Hon. Friend an-
swered the question at once, as if he had been taught by Dr.
Wiseman himself—(A laugh)—as if he had been brought up
at the feet of his Eminence. That the Pope has no autho-
rity as a spiritual function for the appoiatment of all bishops
at all times is, I think, proved by various works, but by no
one more clearly than by Dr. Twiss, in his book on this
subject, full of learning, and stated with great temper. I
think nothing is more clearly proved than this, that the cir-
cumscription of dioceses must be consented to by the sove-
reign authority, and that the appointment of bishops is not
spiritual bat temporal. The consecration of bishops Dr. Twiss
fairly considers a spiritual matter; but that bishops can be
appointed without the consent of the sovereign authority, and
an express agreement that the Pope or some other autho-
rity shall have the power to appoint them, is what I think
all goad authorities on this subject would deny, and they
would deny it in common with the public law of Europe,
and in common with the practice of every country in Europe.
—(Elean) Let any man who goes to Protestant countries—
let him refer to Prussia. Holland, or Saxony, which, though
i has a Catholic King, has a Protestant people, and he will
find in every one of them that the Royal authority would
'be used against such an appointment, against any such a
"circn.rnscription of dioceses, and that it would not be per-
mitted. If that is the case, I ask you to look at the
nature orthis aggression. It is, as it struck me at the very
commencement, an assumption of power over the realm of
England at variance with the supremacy of the Crown, at
variance with the rights of its clergy, at variance with and
in contradiction of the independence of the nation. Some
Hon. Gentlemen say, let us have a resolution ; let it be in as
stringent terms as you please, deciding that there is no
right to assume such power, and that the Queen retains all
her temporal authority and spiritual supremacy as it is
by law established. That might be done, but I do not
know that it would be wise of Parliament to come to
resolutions which, when they were produced in a court of
justice, when a Roman Catholic clergyman appeared there as
Archbishop of Westminster, and another Roman Catholic
clergyman as Bishop of Birmingham, might be decided by
the presiding judge to be of no value in law—to be utterly
worthless, and to be a declaration which he, sitting
on the bench of justice, could pay no attention to. I
cannot advise the House to take a course by which I think
the dignity of Parliament would be compromised.-01ear,
hear.) My Right Hon. Friend who last spoke goes to the
other extreme. He say., " If regality is attacked you have the
case of Lalor, in which regality was asserted. Why does not
the Attorney-General proceed according to the case of
Lalor ?" My Right Hon. Friend hardly stated the case
against Lalor as it actually occurred. He says that Lalor,
having attempted to encroach upon the temporal privileges
of the Crown, was, for that attempt, indicted and convicted.
After that statement I must claim the indulgence of the
lloiese while I state what was actually the case against
LLulor. The indictment was framed in the Court of
Queen's Bench in Ireland, and it charged Lalor that he
bad received a bull from the Court of Rome. giving him
autho city, as vicar-general, prejudicial to the King's autho-
rity within the realm, and that, under pretext of such
vicar-generalship, he had exercised, by appointments to
benefices, in matrimonial causes, dispensations, and
other matters, jurisdiction appertaining to the episcopal office
to the detriment of the authority, dignity, and regality of the
Crown. On this indictment Lalor, after a consultation of
half an hour on the part of the jury, was found guilty, and I
believe sentenced. He was proceeded against under an Act
e, f Richard 11. He was proceeded against, in point of fact,
nee having usurped episcopal jurisdiction ; not for doing any-
thi.og by direct means against the authority or temporal
pow er or legality of the Crown, but for exercising episcopal
jurisciiction, and the right appertaining to and vested in the
Cr .wit. By that statute of uichard 11., after the enumera-
tion of the offences comprehended under the usurpation of
the episcopal jurisdiction, it was declared that all persons
committing these offences should be put out of the King's
protec'ion. should forfeit to the King their lands, tenements,
goods, and chattels, and be imprisoned during the pleasure
of the Crown. Now, it appears to me that very possibly
some of these new bishops thus appointed by the Pope may
have done those very things which Lalor was found guilty
of having done ; that in causes matrimonial, appoint-
ments to benefices, and various other matters
which appertain to the episcopal jurisdiction, they
have used the powers for which bishops are or-
dained. Now, I conceit/ that it would have been a
hard course on our parts, with such penalties before us— as-
suming we had got evidence—to have proceeded against Dr.
Wiseman, and have endeavoured to convict him under that
sta:ute of Richard.—(Hear, hear.) Had we done so, what
would, indeed, have become of that religious liberty in which
we are charged with being wanting? Had we acted upon
that statute, by which Dr. Wiseman would have been de-
prived of his goods and chattels and have been imprisoned
during the pleasure of the Crown—would there not have
been an outcry that we were harshly resuscitating for a par-
ticular purpose ancient statutes, which, not having been used
for twa centuries, might be considered obsolete, and would
not the reproach as to the infringement of religious liberty
have been sent forth with ten times more vehemence than it
has been already ? (Hear.) We find that those Gentlemen
who have spoken on this subject, to the effect that some pub-
lic measures ought to have been taken, very much divided in
opinion as to what ought to have been done, have suggested
various courses which they conceive would have been
better than the present Bill. Without going into all
their suggestions, let me submit one observation to the
House. Here is a point cn which there is hardly any dif•
ference of opinion, that this Papal aggression itself is arro-
gant in the extreme.—(Hear, hear.) There bas been no al-
ternative
has p
been
to the course that we propose on which
there anything like a general agreement, or which
has been at all made out to have a clear and practical bear-
ing upon the case in hand. The course proposed by Lord
Stanley was that there should be a resolution, but likewise
that we should have an inquiry with reference to future le-
gislation; and the Noble Lord manifests his belief that we
are not at present prepared for legislation on this subject, by
declaring that he thought a year, or perhaps two years,
might elapse before that legislation could be proceeded with.
(Hear, hear.) Now, although I might have preferred my
own course, yet had that otter course been proposed by Lord
Stanley, as head of the Government, I might have been ready
to a lopt it in deference to the authority of the Govern-
ment. I now put it to the House; you have one course be-
fore you—a course proposed by the Government—and there
is no other clear, definite course proposed as an alternative to
that course. Now is it not better, if you mean to do anything
at all against this aggression, to agree to the course proposed
by the Government—even though that course be not the
best possible—rather than reject it in the vague hope that
some other course may at some future period be proposed, to
which a fuller and more general assent may be accorded.—
(Hear, hear.) It has been said, among other matters, that
what is now proposed falls far short of that which I indi-
cated before Parliament met, and especially in that letter of
mine which has often been referred to—my letter to the
Bishop of Durham.—(Hear.) Sir, I am ready to abide by
all the sentiments contained in that le ter.—(lronical cries of
Hear, hear," and much counter cheering.) The letter has
beet' so often referred to by others, that I may be permitted
to re er to it myself.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The re-
presentations which have been made of that letter have been
gnat ly erroneous ; it has been represented that in that letter
I did not look to public opinion for a cure of the evil com-
plained of, but to some stringent law on the subject of this
Pe,ll aggression. Now, what I said in the letter was this
--atter describing the character of the aggression, I pro-

ceeded
Even if it shall appear that the Ministers and servants
of tit, Pope in this country have not transgressed the law, I
feel persuaded that we are strong enough to repel any cut-
w r.,1 attacks. The liberty of Protestantism has been en-
j,,v ,(1 in England too long to allow of any successful attemil
to •:n pose a foreign yoke upon our minds and consciences.
7•'reign prince or potentate will be permitted to fasten his
t 79 upon a nation which has so long end so nobly vindi-
- t its rights to freedom of opinion - civil, political, and re-

lie:, us."
slow, this was a clear appeal not to the powers of the
lase, either as they exist now, or as they might be enacted
to the purpose, but to that liberty of opinion, civil and reli-
gieue, which this country has long enjoyed, and which I con-
si-ered to be the great antidote against the attempt to fa:ten
upon our consciences the yoke to which they had so long
been serangers (Cheers.) With regard to any measures to
be taken in the way of enactment, I think, Hon. Gentl men,
when I have read the words I used, will allow that they were
sufficiently guarded Upon this subject, then, I will say
that, the present state of the law shall be carefully examined,
and the propriety of adopting any proceedings with reference
to the recent assumption of power deliberately considered."
It does not even say that any proceedings at all were to be
taken ; it merely says that the propriety of taking any pro-
ceedings should be deliberately considered.—(Hear, hear.)
An 1 say, therefore, that if at the meeting of Parliament
the Government had declared that they did not think it ne-
ces,ary to introduce a Bill or to institute any prcceedings—
whether such a course would have been wise or unwise,
justifiable or not, at all events it would have been com-
pletely consistent with the assertion in that letter—(Hear,
hear)—and yet it has been represented that this measure
tees far short of the intimations held out by me be-
fore the meeting of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) I
say still that our main defence, our main security, consists
in that liberty of discussion, in that liberty of thought, in
tbsA political freedom which we have so long enjoyed, and
!which we will maintain—(Cheers)—but it does not follow
I.°lll this that it may not be necessary to have some legisla-
tive assertion of the supremacy of the Crown and the freedom
of tn: nation.—( Hear.) It has always appeared to me, from
1-12 e
ieryflrst, that if any measure was to be propose'f, it
should ue one of the mildest form, and that it would be far
better to eau
somewhat short of what the occasion might
seem to justify, than to exceed, in any degree, the absolute
necessity of
and after all I have heard—after the
proposal . os, the
sending a fleet to Civita Vecchia, and various
other proposal 3 that hay a been made —I am still of the same
opinion.—(Hear, hear.) after one assertion, in particular,
which has been much relied upon, I wish to call the
'attention of the House to what i 3 ac' ually the fact
Some of the Gentlemen opposed to the Bill represent it as.
,ene s,f persecution, and say that the first clause contains
sguntdialanddifftehrierntesoinththat
within itself the enactments of the
the omission of these two makes no
Bill. Without entering into the question of law on which
e
es this hrst
when in Committee we shall hear enough fro_
the long robe, I will put this to
.the House7...e,
this
of
clause in itself is so very persecuting how conies it for 21
years the Roman Catholics of Ireland have been subject to
the law, without making scarce a murmur against it; that,
in point of fact, the only decided expression of opinion
e'on re-
specting it was that in 1830, of the Roman Catholic arch-
bishops and bishops, which expression Was one of acquies-
cence e-(Hear, hear.) What this clause says is simply
that, our existing sees and dioceses shall be protected from
aiegreseion, and that Roman Catholic clergymen shall not be
allowed to assume the title from any place or district in the
United Kingdom. For 21 years the Romal Catholic pre-
lates and laity have been suffering under the dreadful perse-
cution which is discovered lurking under the clause, and
never ones in the whole time have been aware of their suf-
ferings. We have heard of the gentleman who spoke prose
all his life and didn't know it; but only conceive a whole
people suffering all the martyrdom of persecution, and not
knowing anything about it! This shows that the Bill
at ail events, is not very oppressive. That questions may
arise with regard to the execution of this Bill if it become
%in_ England I cannot well doubt. I. believe that that is
fiN"ll be thebelief is that when the
ely to case, but my
has agreed to this en-
--I RoulansCatholics see that Parliament
teeerj,--- gement they willl bow to the authority of Parliament and
will not attempt the assumption of those titles.—(Hear,
'ca 11 not bear.) Ent, Sir, other questions may
arise, and I will
Ileve conceal from the House any more than I have myself,
that you may not by this Bill meet every danger that we
say tigPo to micitinter, Novi I hays it not la Goatezoida.