The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

itl:rct With respect to temporali• ies. That principle was ad-
D,rntti,by Dr. Wiseman, and .by Mr.
.Bowyer in his able
e,..enret, In cases where bishops having territorial dis-
`,a cleirned the right of appointing priests to benefices,
of
.that right being resisted by Roman Catholic laymen, or
bishops merely exercising ecclesiastical functions, the force
gf
et. the canon law, if an appeal were made to the Court of
tilancery, the appointment of the former would stand, or if
e aPPointment of the latter were in force, the Court would
dl
those priests from their benefices. Now this wr as an
in.astration of the mode in which the canon law could come
tv`i° force. It might, therefore, be introduced to a consider-
i,"te extent with respect to temporal matters, and he believed
t`rotild be most unjust to allow trustees to be appointed by
oOreign potentate, or through the nomination of a foreign
toentate, to exercise those temporal rights over persons
tolng in this country. This was the case of a foreign
-ntate appointing and having control over bishops,
which means they would exercise control over British
sabthat
He believed he spoke the truth when he said
ot there were no spiritual functions which could not
;:_ePerfortned in all respects by persons exercising episcopal
tions as by territorial bishops. He had not heard
rtcYi gentleman mention a matter of spiritual interest which
oiuired the bishop of a territorial district to perform.
vear, hear.) Did ordination, collation to benefices, clispen-
th'el!na, the administration of governments—did. any one of
hiia matters require to be exclusively performed by the
"QP of a territorial district? He invited Honourable
ieutlernen, who spoke after him to mention, if they could,
9, spiritual matters which could' be administered by the
IXu°P of a territorial diocese, but could not be administered
a, bishop not belonging to a territorial district. Now, if
t,'
be so—and if the appointment of territorial bishops does
til" touch the spirival but the temporal art of the matter,
ao it was idle tort alk about this measure being an act of
wtraecution and tyrannising over the Roman Catholics. It
tio :
, not a measure to interfere with the rights, and func-
', and freedom of religion me
, but ameasure to check and
tu? a direct species of machinery which transferred into
hands of a foreign potentate certain property to a con-
t,erable extent belonging to the inhabitants of this
;11trY, and allowed that foreign potentate to deal with it.
W''itsanctions, ever complained that the full performance of spiritual
sanctions
had not been carried out within the last fifty
at,l in this country by vicars-apostolic?—(Hear, hear.)
lc how matters stood in the Bill before the House.
h
i,a, Rouse was now asked to read the Bill a second time,
ci the intention on the part of the Government to omit
r
e„. the clauses except the first clause. He admitted there
difference between the case of England and Ireland in
ouse matters. In Ireland, for three hundred years, the Ro-
'eat
of Catholic Church had been governed by means of bishops
territorial dioceses, while in this country that system
‘tver existed.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite obvious that it
gas a different matter to put an end to a system that had
hiltedit for three centuries, and to prevent its introduction
to a country where bishops of territorial districts were
oleo. recognized. That was a strong reason why the
Hlatter
• es of the Bill should not be applied to Ireland. e re-
loi eed that the Government had thought fit to reject those
clauses, and to confine the Bill to the first clause. With re-
bPect to the opinion given Mr. Bthell of the Chancery
4,, respecting the operationy of thee Bill,, he did not agree
it tt that opinion, but he should state how far he considered
correct. It was undoubted law that a contract or liability
sought
to be established in a court of law by a person calling
lloself Archbishop of Westminster could be enforced. No
),tiger would they dispute that proposition. The Court of
the would only look whether the person styling himself
t 1 a Archbishop of Westminster was clearly entitled to the
tortl,rn which he had made. To this extent, and this ex-
'4l4 only, would the second claim be included in the first.
t,, law of Ireland for the last 21 years was the same as now
;Posed, and in no court of justice was any case raised, and
at was sure his Learned Friends of the English bar would
tttUnce admit that at no bar could there be found mo-e as-
e,a,
hermoe learned, or able gentlemen than those connected
section
Irish bar.— (Hear, hear.) They would take an ob-
th lion to the system if they c ould, and the House wou d find
at during that length of time that no interference what-
(bar Was attempted with the concerns of the Roman Catholic
dialirell in that country. He admitted there was a considerale
h,,erence between the case of Ireland and that of England,
When objections were made against the Bill on that ac-
to‘
tide the House would allow him to call their attention to
°Peration of the clause. The Bill proposed to do nothing
than this; it said that if new bishops were made in
Ireland they should be exactly in the same position as the
the and that if new ones were appointed in this country,
0, should be placed in the same position as the Irish
Of the
hear.) Now that was really the effect
'e Bill, and where was the monstrous persecution
th Which they had heard so much, and against which
rat People had been stirred up to the depths of their in-
thrt feelings ?—(Cheers.) Surelythere must
the surface.
be some-
will.l; More in it than what there appeared on
a similar measure was introduced into the Relief Act
g,,°29, wag i; not then considered a great boon, and did any
ti;-tlenaan say then, look at the tyranny which existed, and
Then
outrage offered to men's consciences?—(Hear, hear.)
where was the abandonment of the principle of civil
1,41 d religious freedom? So far from it, that when, in 1829,
jr:3ltem existing for three hundred years was changed in
th`lacid, no complaint was raised against it where was
kta hardship, or why exclaim against it, when introduced
°,. this country to meet a case for the first time, and when
to Lotally different system formerly existed? It was,
e,refore, strange that it should be said this was a
ullolation of civil and religious liberty; and, as regarded
,:e English Members who opposed- the measure, he be-
e'ed it was done from a belief that the Queen ought not to
tbe supreme head of any church. That was the cause
ee great schism which occurred in the Scottish Church,
Andl that opinion was also entertained by a great mass of the
ie
made
of this country. With respect to the observations
measure
by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, that the present
was a persecution of Roman Catholics, he (the
Attorney-General) did not think his Honourable and Learned
viend himself believed it. He, for one, and those connected
pith him, had the strongest possible affection for his Roman
,',e atholie fellow-subjects, and desired that they should have
° fullest and freest exercise of their religion ; and sorry
could he feel, were he a party to any act which would re-
strain them in that exercise in the slightest degree. His
sight Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, in his eloquent
and brilliant speech, which was listened to by the House with
41.nauch admiration as pleasure—(Cheers) referred to a per-
aonage in a speech of his made on the occasion when the Di-
tiotnatic Relations Bill was before the House. His Right
hh.°ll. Friend would, however see, if the House would allow
Ira, to refer to that passage, that his opinions then were in
strict accordance with those which he now entertained. In
tint of fact, what he then said might be fairly construed
toc;, a prophecy of what occurred in September last. A
t, was proposed by the Hon. Member for Lambeth
(Om
4. C. Pearson), and in resisting it, he (the Attorney--
?eneral) said that as the law now stood, the Pope may
?tercel out the country as he pleased, and if the motion were
agreed to his power would still be the same, but that the
"at and only mode of preventing it was to open. diplomatic
relations with the See of Rome.—(Hear, hear.) Now that
celtut nothing more than this--namely, that he was de-
tifrt°us there should be a Bill to prevent such a measure as was
e.,,,,.,arvrards introduced, and that opinion was strictly in ac-
t'uance with the opinions he then held. There certainly
ea nothing in the law as it stood to prevent the assump-
eu of ecclesiastical titles, and parcelling out a territory
dioceses in England was not illegal ; and as to the sug-
Z,tions thrown out that a prosecution ought to have been
th'"toted. he acknowledged that he and his Learned Friend
4te
_. Solicitor-General were most reluctant to do so,antde
tungly dissuaded the Government from having recourse
(thy a
()fii uch proceeding.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The
Y offence committed was that of publishing the bull ; and
Ought to be recollected that every newspaper in the
WfltrY committed the same offence ez Cardinal
tri "'omen in that respect. Then with respect to diplo-
th4tia relations with Rome, it ought to be recollected that
Lo
measure was rendered inoperative and inefficient, be-
-4.8e a Noble Lord had in another place intro duced clauses
L,,ich completely crippled the measure. and yet that Noble
cc",r,tl was now opposed to the present Bill.. - (Cries of
hear.") Ile thought then, as he thought now,
that
tfi"k a measure would have prevented what has since oc-
curred, and every subsequent circumstance confirmed him,
A„._t it was a misfortune of no ordinary kind that that mea-
,7fra did not pass into a law.—(Hear, hear.) The law officers
the tho Crown could not bring an action, nor did they feel
statutes;rnsehres justified in prosecuting under old and obsole e
and the only remedy, therefore, which remained,
hg
a legislative enactment and a legislative decTiaration that
„`la act complained of was illegal, and imps sing certain
t,lalties in case of its being violated. The Roman Catholics
o
.10( this country were a body of men peculiarly remarkable
their loyalty to the Throne, and their zeal for the interests
°J. the country. In saying that he did not make any excep-
tion in their favour to the prejudice of other portions of the
'°llimunity who are equally loyal, but it would now be seen
Whether in their obedience to the law they would show their
"Ox iety to continue in the course they had so long followed.
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had
Selled the present Bill a measure of persecution, but
Surely he could not compare it as such with the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes, or in any way approach-
ing what might be fairly termed a persecution for religious
opinions. He had also, in a peculiarly touching manner, re-
ferred to one by whom he was bound by every tie, and to
Whose principles he owed the position he enjoyed in that
House. Those were the principles in which he was educated;
but he believed it was perfectly consistent with those prin-
ciples to adopt the course which he now felt himself bound to
follow. But perhaps his Right Hon. Friend would allow him
to refer to a speech of his made on the 30th of March, 1835,
on the appropriation clause. In that speech his Right Hon.
Friend said, " It may be said that I am deviating from
those general Whig principles on which I acted since 1
entered into public life—and if I might venture to define
them, I should say they consisted in liberty of thought or
action in all mat.ere political and religious consistent with
w, order, and constituted authority. lam for no death's
bead.,,, and cross-bones—for no prayers of mercy limited to
Heaven, but not to earth, because a Rol nan Catholic
voter would not go a certain way. I feel the
utmost jealousy of Popery as an instrument of political
domination—(Hear, hear, and loud cheering)—an ardent
and uncompromising attachment to the Protestant religion
ae by law established."—(Cheers.) He (the Attorney-Ge-
neral) fully concurred in those sentiments, and with the
most anxious wish that the present measure would not inter-
fare with that harmony now happily existing between both
oountries, with a s•ncere desire that the prosperity now
dawning on that country should not be blighted by anything
that had occurred, he felt bound conscientiously to vote for
the second reading of the Bill.--(Cheers.)
Mr. W. FAGAN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was not going to oppose
the motion for the adjournment of the debate; but consi-
oaring the extent and ability of the arguments used on both
sides, he hoped the House would look forward to a division I
on Monday night.
The motion for the adjournment was then agreed to, and
the debate was accordingly adjourned till Monday next.
The Consolidated Fond (8,000,0001.) Bill passed through
Committee.
Mr. MITCHELL moved for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the constitution and management of the Board of
Customs.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. said he should
not oppose the motion, but he hoped his Hon- Friend would
tot consider his consent to the motion as at all implying a
conviction on his part as to the necessity for it.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. LABOUCHERE moved for leave to introduce a Bill
rot the better amendment of the navigation-laws relating to
steam-vessels, with a view to prevent overcrowding, and to
afford proper accommodation to passengers. Re should also
Propose to extend the Act to sailing vessels.
, Alderman SIDNEY wished to know whether the steam-
boats plying on the Thames would come within the opera-
tion of the Act.
Mr. LABOUCHERE replied they would be included in
the Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice that on tb e motion for
going into Supply he should move for the production of the
Paper granting an additional 500/. a year to the chairman
of the Commissioners o' Inland Revenue • and also call at-
tention to the increasing nuisance of . the lenge itinerant
barrel organs in the streets of London.
The House then adjourned at Half-past Twekve o'clock.

THE

EAST INDIA

HOUSE.

SUN, LONDON, S