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

WEDNESDAY- EVENING,

agreed with his Hon. and Learned Friend that, if the Noble
Lord were sincere in the view he had taken of the Papal ag-
gression, he ought to have come forward with a Bill denoun-
cing it in explicit terms as a thing opposed to the sovereignty
of the Queen, and to have introduced a clause prohibiting
all persons from acting under the Papal brief, or under any
similar document, under a penalty. This, he conceived —if
there was to be any correspondence between the language of
the Noble Lord and his acts—between his promises and his
performances—was the sort of measure which the Noble Lord
should have proposed. He ventured to think that the public
would be satisfied with nothing else.—(Cheers.) He was
perfectly satisfied that if they proceeded in a vacillating,
hesitating, and temporizing course they would entirely fail ;
that if they touched " the nettle danger" timidly, they would
only be stung the more ; but that if they grasped it boldly
it would be perfectly harmless.—(Cheers.) Ile felt that this
was the first of a series of formidable encroachments. He
believed that if they did not take their stand in every
breach they would entail a fearful struggle upon their pos-
terity. He was too sensible of the advantages which we
had derived from the light and liberty of the Reformation
which had been won for them by the labour, the danger, and
the blood of their ancestors, not to endeavour, as far as he
could, to transmit them unimpaired to the latest genera-
tion. (Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM explained that on comparing the report
of the Duke of Wellington's speech of 1829, which he had
quoted from Hansard the other evening, With the report in
the Mirror of Parliament, he found that the date of 1792,
therein referred to, was a misprint for 1782, and that the
Duke's words were, according to the Mirror of Parliament,
that an Act having been passed in 1793, which was under-
stood to repeal the Act of 1782, the consequence had been
that the practice of assuming titles had greatly increased.
The Right Hon. Baronet added, that the Act of 1782 was
intended for the relief generally of the Roman Catholics,
but a proviso was added to the eighth clause
(which he read) to the effect that the benefits of it would
not be extended to any Popish ecclesiastic who should as-
sume any ecclesiastical ranker title whatever.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he had listened, as indeed he was
satisfied the House had listened, with that admiration which
he had never failed to experience to the speech of his Hon.
and Learned Friend. The views of •his Hen. and Learned
Friend were, however, unmistakeable. They should feel
obliged for their disclosure, but he thought it was well that
the House, which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had in-
vited to enter on a new path, which no Ilan among them
might see the end of, should at least consider the direction
in which it tended. The course which the Noble and
Learned Gentleman too plainly indicated, was a destruction of
the principles of religious freedom in their application to
Roman Catholic subjects. His Hon. and Darned Friend had
distinctly adverted to the necessity of introducing clauses
into the Bill for preventing synodal action; but he believed
that no gentleman would stand up in that House atd say
that voting for such a clause he was a friend for religious
freedom to the Roman Catholics. His own plea for address-
ing the House at that period of the debate was, that
he was the only Member repreaentine,an English university,
and a large portion of the highest clergy, who had not yet
spoken, and he had the misfortune to stand in opposition to
the sentiments and judgment of all his colleagues.—(Hear,
hear.) He should pass by many matters alluded to in the
debate, and come at once to the considerition of that which
struck him as being most important and forcible. He did
not pretend to make light of the dangers to which the Church
of England was exposed. He differed from the Hon. Mem-
ber who expressed an apprehension, in which he (Mr. Glad-
stone) by no means shared, for the freed= of the Queen.—
(Hear.) Now he had no apprehension for the freedom of
the Queen. Looking at their respective anstitutions, and at-
taching full importance to the blessings of free education,
he believed that the constitution of England was strong
enough to resist any aggression which might be perpetrated,
or meditated, or intended by any power, temporal or spi-
ritual. He entered his protest against all attempts to meet
spiritual dangers of the Church by temporal legislation.
The principle they had now to deal withwas plain.—(Hear.)
If the Roman Church by its authorities, whether the Pope,
the cardinals, the bishops, or anybody doe, continued such
an interference with temporal affairs ,aa would not be per-
mitted in the case of another religious body, then he said
they were not only entitled, but they were bound to inter-
fere.— (Hear.) But until the exercise of that interference
until they overstepped that line which 'was drawn, not for
them only, but for all men, between 'titters spiritual and
temporal—until that was done, they had no right to inter-
fere. They had no right to deny to them that which they
gave to any other body.—( Hear, hear.) He would briefly
advert to that which had been well said the other night
by his Right Honourable Friend the „Member for Ripon
in regard to the language used both in the brief of
the Pope, and in the letter of Cardinal Wiseman, with
respect to these ecclesiastical appoietments. He confessed
that that language had not only been impertinent,
but of a vaunting and a boastful character . (Cheers.) He
would not say that it had been adopted with any intention
of wounding the feelings of the people of England, but it
was certainly language of which complaint might most
justly be made, and couched too, in strong terms.—(lronical
cheers, and counter cheering.) It was not enough that the
language of those documents should be offensive to justify
their interference; but the act itself should warrant it, and
therefore the question of the wisdom of this legislation must
stand or fall by the substance of the art itself. He did not
stop to inquire whether the Pope had done all that might
have been expected from him. In point of principle, and in
point of prudence he could conceive that there were other
steps that it would have been wise for him to have taken.
He did not consider, either, whether there had been a breach
of the law of nations ; but if that law had been broken, in his
opinion nothing could be more disparaging than for the Go-
vernment to propose, and for that House to entertain a mea-
sure proceeding in respect of that breach of the law of nations
by imposing penalties. And that letter to the Bishop of Dur-
ham was a letter, certainly, which the Noble Lord never
would have demeaned himself to write.—(Cheers and inter-
ruption.) Perhaps he was in fault. He did not mean to say
that the Noble Lord had done himself any dishonour by that
letter— (Ironical cheers)—but that he would have demeaned
himself if, when he wrote it, if he thought there had been a
breach of the law of nations. (Cheers.) It was certainly a
matter of regret that the Noble Lord should have made his
complaint, not in the regular way, but by a letter to the
Bishop of Durham.—(Cheers and laughter.) Admitting
that in the abstract there might be a wrong, which he could
not exactly define, he must say that no ground whatever had
been made out by Government to prove that our Crown had
been wronged, and that the independence of the nation had
been violated. What he contended for was, that they should
have proceeded by diplomatic agency..--(Hear, hear.) But
what was the answer of the Government to that? Only this,
that a clause was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations
with Rome Bill, which prevented the Pope from sending his
agent to this country. But was that a reason why they
should not send an envoy to the Pope, to complain that
he had invaded our national independence, and insulted
the powers of the Crown?—(Cries of .‘Hear, hear.")
For was there a man who would say that the Pope
would have been bold enough to turn back an envoy
bringing -a well-founded complaint of that nature?
That, however, was a matter affecting the conduct of the
Government. They had now this Bill before them, and the
question was, what had they to do, with it? And however
wrong, or however right, the Government might be, they
must now make up their minds to the questioa whether this
Bill should or should not be read a second time.—(Hear,
hear.) His Learned Friend who had just sat down was
eager in denouncing the act of the Pope, and in calling for
redress; but he had not heard a man who had shown by
reasoning that this was a Bill adequate to the purposes in
vie vv.— (Cheers.) No one had abused the measure more
than they who had made the most ingenious speeches in its
favour. For example, what did the Rigbt Hon. Gentleman
the Attorney-General say? That we had a law to prevent
the introduction of bulls, in which respect an act of illegality
had been committed by the Pope's agents; but that there
was no law to prevent the parcelling out of the kingdom
into dioceses, and ks a matter of course, the assumption of
territorial titles from those dioceses. Therefore an act of ille-
gality had been committed, in respect of which no step was
taken, and another act which was not illegal, but was inno-
cent, they proposed to legislatefor by a penal Bill. Thus they
left the illegal act unscathed, while the legal act of the
creation of dioceses, and the usurpation of titles, they were
going to make illegal by an ex post facto law.— (Cheers.)
How much has been said about Ireland, but poor Scotland
had scarcely been mentioned.—(Hear, hear.) And they:
was not time, to go properly into the question of Scotland as
affected by the provisions of this Bill. But when they
reached the Committee, which he was bold enough to thick
they might still be able to reach—(Cheers and laughter)—
perhaps the subject of Scotland might come under discusson,
and assuredly it would be a subject well worthy of unlade-
ration.— (Hear-)
The Government expressed their convic-
tion to be, that, in spite of all difficulties, it was theirlbso-
lute duty to adopt a system of equal legislation with regard
to England and Ireland, because the great constitutional
doctrine on which they raised their trivial and petty super-
structure, was susceptible of equa; application to the two
people. Well, what said the Attorney-General? He (Mr.
Gladstone) presumed that, in giving his opinion on the sub-
ject, he meant precisely what he said. But this was the
doctrine in his mind—considering that this was in the mair.
an extension to England of that section of the Catholic
Emancipation Act, now only practically operative in Ireland.
He said it was true, that in Ireland tat section had not, been
called into activity, but that in England the case would be
different. It was intended to put that machinery into opera-
tion, he said, and, in fact, that that should be tolerated in Ire-
land which was not endured :in England. He might state
the views that were expressed in introducing this law; but
if that law was to be a dead letter in Ireland, while in Eng-
land it was to be a living principho, and a source of penal
proceedings, what now became of their flourishes about the
supremacy of the Queen, and the equality of law in one
"
country and in the other?—(Loud ries of 1168 r, hear," and
cheers.) But what was the Bill supposed to be, and what
one say what its precise effect
ect of the Bill was supposed to
bi in itself s e
Onel f ?
pCr
ioeuclidp
al oh
eyb
wwoasulidt
be the prevention of synodal action. 'He understood the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentlemat the Attorney-General
to say that it would not prevent synodal action. He un-
derstood the Solicitor-General as distinctly to say, in the
last passage of ;his speech, that the 1111 with its one clause
would prevent synodal action.—(Jheers and laughter.)
But he would pass that by.—(Hear, near.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL exalained that he said that
Roman Catholics themselves put it upon tjne ground that
without territorial title there coulc be no synodal action.
The Bill took away territorial title, aid upon the showing of
the Roman Catholics themselves sytodal action fell to the
ground.
Mr. GLADSTONE--That was the climax of the Hon,
and Learned Gentleman's speech, to ihow the stringency of
the Bill, in support of which view hewas obliged to take ad-
vantage of the state of things represaated by the Catholics
themselves. But what was the effee of the omission of the
second and third clauses? On thatpoint they had had the
assistance of many lawyers there. 'bey were unfortunately
laymen. " Unfortunately," did hi say ?_(Cheers, and
laughter.) What assistance had thor had from the lawyers?
The Attorney-General said that when the second and third
clauses hail been expunged, the first clause would have the
same effect. An Hon. and Learned Member, on the other
hand, had produced the opinions of the most distinguished
lawyers, that the second and third !lenses would stand in
the way of the first.—(Cheers, and .aughter.) That was
pretty well in the way of contradiction ; but it mended the
matter much when his Hon. and Darned Friend, who had
just sat down, came in with an authsrity and told them, as
distinctly, that neither the rue was sight or the other ; but
the second clause would be involved in the first, and that the
third clause would not.—(Hear.) Bit this was a Bill in-
tended to maintain the rights of tht Queen and the inde-
pendence of the nation. Why was it to maintain the rights
of the Queen's Crown? Who had of ended them? A foreign
power. And what was their mod( of dealing with he
foreign power? Why to impose certain penalties on her
Majesty's subjects. Did that Bill as I stood give them any
coherent idea of, or refer teem to au3 principle? He would
have yielded it a comparative approbation if it had referred
even to a false principle. But there was none such. It was a
Bill to repress foreign authority ; then why did it not confine
itself to Protestant foreign titles?—(Hear ) Why were
certain domestic titles repressed by that Bill ? —(Hear.)
That was not so remote a case. In the last session of Par-
liament, or thelast but one, a petition was presented to the
House of Lords by Lord Brougham, and was supported by
many Peers, in which many gentlemen denominated Eng-
lish Episcopalians residing in Scotland, prayed the House of
Lords to give them episcopal goverment. Such a Dill, had