The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-08 00:00:00

MARCH 8, 1851.

ings of the people were greatly changed (which he did
not believe) their disappointmt nt would be very great,
for they had placed confidence in the statement of the
Noble Lord, and on the & claration made in the Speech
from the Throne on the subject, and their impression
now would be that their confidence had been betrayed.
The general feeling throughout the country was that
the resignation of the Noble Lord's Miuistiy had been
occasioned by this Bill, and until he heard it denied it
was an opinion in which he would share, and therefore,
though the modification of the Bill might please some
parties, adherents of the Noble Lord, because it placed
him in power, the people of the country had a right to
expect some better explanation for the disappoint-
went to which they would be now subjected.
—(Hear, hear.) The Severeigu must think that her
prerogative had not been protected—that her rights,
her supremacy, and her authority had not been
well trusted in the hands in which they were now
placed, when this altered measure was the only result of
the Noble Lord's letter, of the Noble Lord's speech, and
of the Speech from the Throne, which her Nlajesty had
been advised by the Noble Lord's Government to ad-
dress to Parliament. He (Mr. Bankee) had on the first
introduction of the Bill called the attention of the Noble
Lord to the synodal action of the Roman Catholic hier-
archy, as exemplified in the instance of the Synod of
Tburles. That, in his opinion, was the gravest ques-
tion in connexion with the matter—a body of priests
sittiug in judgment upon every subject, from mixed
schools to tenant-right. The greatest danger lay in that
direction, in his opinion. The Hon. Member then
quoted a passage from a speech of Lord Liverpool, de-
livered May 17, 1825. on the Catholic claims, which
was to the effect that the danger of concession was not
immediate, but remote; that, however, it was equally
certain, and that the object of the Catholic Church ever
was, and ever would be, to destroy Protestantism. The
noble speaker, in conclusion, considered the hope of
union by a common education as visionary. The Ca-
tholic claims, however, were conceded, and a common
education was proposed; but the Synod of Thurles in-
terfered, and put an end to it, as had been predicted by
Lord Liverpool. He (Mr. Bankee) complained that the
Bill did not meet this danger; and that it was therefore
an illusion and a mockery.
Mr. GLADSTONE suggested that the Noble Lord
should print the changes he proposed to make in the Bill.
He understood that words were to be added to the first
clause to distinguish the bishops of the Church in Scot-
land; and he also presumed that some alteration would
be made in the preamble of the Bill, the language of
which as it stood now was so wide as to cover everything.
He was aware that it was not usual to print alterations;
but he hoped the Noble Lord would do so in the present
instance.
Lord C. HAMILTON asked the House whether it
ever conceived it possible that the original Bill could be
reduced to such a miserable remnant. The original Bill
was framed to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical
titles, and the preamble referred to 10th Geo. IV., in-
flicting a penalty of 1001. on such assumption, The in-
tention of the Government, however, it now appeared,
was somewhat different. They had, four months after
the Bill was framed, discovered doubts and difficulties in
respect to 'relate", and the Secretary of State proposed
to omit the second and third clauses of the Bill. The
Right Hon. Gentleman proved that the law had been in-
operative in Ireland for the last twenty-one years, and
that the Crown had not piosecated under the 10th
Geo. IV.; but what reason existed why Ireland should
be excluded, in the event of the new creations of sees in
that country ? It did not seem to him to be worth while
to excite the country for such a result as the measure
now proposed by the Government.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I have no objection to the course
proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone),
and am willing to print in a separate shape any parts of
the Bill which would not otherwise be printed until eftsr
the second reading. With regard to the clauses which
we propose to omit, it will not be necessary to reprint
them; but the preamble and first clause, as amended,
shall be laid before the House. I wish to correct some
misapprehensions of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dorsetahire (Mr. Bankes). The Hon. Member said it is
well known that the assumption of episcopal titles by
prelates not of the Established Church is against the
law as it at present stands, and that the Government
failed in their duty in not prosecuting those persons who
were guilty of this offence. Now, the statement I made
in the letter to which be alludes was that the law officers
of the Crown should consider the present state of the
law, and if the law were not applicable we would consi-
der whether any measure could not be introduced enact.
ing a new law to meet the case. Questions were so,
cordingly put to the law officers of the Crown, which
were formally and regularly drawn up. To these
questions we received answers, of which I will now state
the substance, and to which I adverted on a former
occasion.

Mr. BANKES—Did they refer to Ireland?
Lord J. RUSSELL—To the assumption of these new
titles.

Mr. BANKES—There had been no assumption of
new titles in Ireland. It had been in this country.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The questions referred to new
titles generally. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman says
the Government knew these persons had committed an
offence at common law, which the Government might,
but had not proceeded to prosecute. My answer is this,
that the law officers said tlay did not think that the as-
sumption of titles was contrary either to the common or
the statute law; end consequently the preamble of this
Bill states that the pretence to establish sees or dioceses
and titles is Wegal and void; but it does not say that the
assumption of titles is illegal, but inconsistent with the
rights which we intended to be protected by the enact-
ment of 1829, It ie evident that, after oteainieg teat
op'nion, it would be futile in us to order the law officers
ut the Crown to prosecute fur what they declared wore
not offeneee. Their opinion went on to say that un-
doubtedly if it could be proved that bulls had been in-
troduced into this country, or, rather, rescripts and
writings from Rome, for the purpose of establishing
these sees, that appeared to be an effsenee, I thii.k, at
co.emon law, but at all events against certain
statutes which were then operative. But that
would have been a prosecution on the intro-
duction of a bull, that bull being upon a particular sub-
ject, but only liable to prosecution inasmuch as any
other bull rr rescript might be, any bull, for example,
allowing persons to marry, or any other bull necessary
for the duo carrying on of the rites of the Roman Catho-
lic Church. He thought it would be an exercise of op.
pression to say that while we prosecuted them in fact
for the assumption of titles we prosecuted in the form
of law for the introduction of a bull; and to say that
any Government should have entire discretion with re-
spect to certain bulls which they thought objectionable,
and which they considered it right to prosecute, that
would be a dangerous discretion for any Government to
exercise.—(Hear, hear.) Whether upon that subject
further legislation may take place I am not prepared to
say. The enactments upon this subject are very unsa-
tisfactory. The introduction of bulls is forbidden, but
whether under the penalties ofruisdemeanour, or of high
treason, is very doubtful ; and at the same time the pro-
hibition is general. It is not such a one as existed in
the time of our earlier kings, against the introduction of
bulls inconsistent with the king's prerogative, or injuri-
ous to the welfare of the State; but against the intro-
duction generally of any writings from Rome. Having
said thus much, I will now say that in the speech which
I made to the House in introducing the Bill now before
us, I expressed at its commencement that we did not in-
tend to legislate upon the whole subject and relations
of this country with the court of Rom., a vast extensive
subject upon which we were not prepared to take mea-
sures of legislation. I said we intended to confine our-
selves to that one particular act, the assumption of the
pretence to sway over the realm of England, and of
titles inconsistent wish the Queen's sovereignty, with
the rights of the bishops and clergy of this reelm,and with
the spiritual independence of the nution. In fact, the
essence of the offence which is committed consists in the
insult that is offered. The other questions upon which
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman has touched
are totally different. It appears to me that, in order to
meet that insult, the direct way is to introduce a Bill
which shall forbid, and, if possible, prevent the assump-
tion of such titles. The Noble Lord who spoke last
certainly requires some further study of this subject, be.
cause he seems totally to have misapprehended It. The
question of the law being inoperative, because there are
certain things done iu Ireland, and given in proof in a
court of law, and the question of the assumptian of titles,
are two totally different questions. The assumption of the
titles of the bishop of certain sees in Ireland is forbidden
by the law. The law is so far obeyed that the persons
thus prohibited to take titles do not take them
in any pnblic document, and when they address the
Crown, or servants of the Crown, they but use their own
names. Now, if persons come into a court of law to
maintain a right which is founded upon the assumption
of those titles, I conceive it would be a question with a
court of law whether any such measure was not invalid
by reason of the assumption of these titles. But it is a
different thing where a person claims a right in which
incidentally it has been shown that this title has been
used. And it might happen that the right might be per-
fectly good, although the mode of proving it might re-
fer to some instrument by which the person signing that
instrument would be shown to have committed an offence
against the law. As the law formerly stood, there were
certain marriages in which the performance of the mar-
riage ceremony was an offence, but notwithstanding that
the marriage was not void, and held good. The diffi-
culty has been to form a clause which would prevent the
synodical meetings of the bishops, and prevent the use of
the titles. But it wasibund that we could not use words
which would prevent that without at the same time pre-
venting the proper exercise of the spiritual govern-
ment of the Roman Catholic Church. In a former
debate I stated that if there was any part of this Bill
which interfered with the religious liberty of the Roman
Catholics, I should be ready to expunge it. The Noble
and Learned Gentleman mentioned the Synod of
Thurles; and I agree with him that the operations and
acts constitute the principal dangers which we have to
fear. But while wo propose to provide for the insult
which has been offered to us, there is some difficulty in
meeting this question of the synods. The Attorney-
General thought that by the use of the word "act" the
operation of the synod might be suspended, but he after-
wards considered that that might be applied to any act
of ordination, and other acts which come within the
spiritual jurisdiction of the Romaa Catholic Church. I
only wish gentlemen to consider the imperfection of
language upon this subject. After much .consideration,
and after various attempts, we have found it impossible
to use language of such a nature as to prohibit exactly
what we wished to prohibit, and decree that which we
wished to permit. Other gentlemen may be more
fortunate and may be able to point out to the Crown
what should be done. It is evident that Lord Stanley
has not been thus fortunate, because ho has proposed
to have a year or two for the preparation of a measure
upon the subject. I will not say that by this, or by any
Bill which we have now to propose, we are free from the
dangers to which the Noble and Learned Gentleman has
awed, Qum, we are five fr the iuterftreuee of the

Roman Catholic bishops and priesthood with the educa-
tion of the people in Ireland, and with various other
matters in Ireland, some of which are partly temporal
and partly spiritual, and others of which are of a wholly
temporal character. But Ido not think, because we have
those dangers to apprehend, that it would be right, even
if it were possible, to prevent the meeting of bishops of
the Roman Catholic Church for matters of a merely spi-
ritual nature.—(Hear, bear.) Supposing there is a
Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and a numerous Ro-
man Catholic population, every one must wjeh that she
Raman Catholic bishops should have the power
o superinteeding the mural conduct of their clergy,
and have the meaes (without calling in the
assistut ce of the temporal power) or prevent-
ing any immorality which might occur amongst the
clergy. Alter all, looking at this question with refer-
ence to temporal power, lam without apprehension. I
have no apprehensions with respect to this country, be-
cauee the feeling of this country has b,-ti shown so ge-
nerally almost unanimously, in favour af our Protestant
faith, that I do not think there is any danger in Engl
I cannot say it is so in Ireland. I cannot say that the
Roman Catholic
,priesthood in Ireland may not inter-
fere seriously and naischievolkly in temporal matters.
The subject requires consideration; and we must see in
what manacr the Government ef the Roman Sees and
the bishops is Ireland act, before we agree to a measure
upon that eubject. lam of opinion that we ought to
confine ourselves in this Bill to a legislative measure
which should assert absolutely the sovereignty of the
Queen.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE said he conceived the real offence
to be the sending of a cardinal into this country, to con-
stitute a legislature not only for the spiritual but the
temporal affairs of Rome. He believed that the powers
and privileges of a cardinal and legate were unknown
to most of those who were about to legislate upon
this question. According to a book which w, uld be
admitted to be an authority, " The Corte di Roma,"
printed at Marseilles in 1774, all affairs—civil, eccle-
siastical, and poliicel—were committed to the bishops
and archbishops; so that such men as Dr. Cullen would
be exercising those powers in Ireland. In another book,
" The Notitia Coneregationum," printed in 1693, wider
the head g• De Previligtos Cardinaliam," it was said that
a man who had been elected a cardinal was by that
freed from the power of his country. Then, if so, Car-
dinal Wiseman was not only an alien but an outlaw. He
could not regard without regret the effect of this measure
upon the character of this country as a free and consti-
tutional kingdom among the nations abroad. England,
with a Church chiming for its head a Queen who was
inferior to none, after having four months agitated upon
the question, and when 395 Members of the House of
Commons had declared that something should be done,
had a Government which, by the paltry measure it now
introduced, declared itself to be utterly impotent to ef-
fect anything.—(Hear, hear.) The Roman Catholics
might well laugh at the course proposed by the Govern-
ment, and Cardinal Antonelli must look on the Right
Honourable Baronet (Sir George Grey) as the moat inef-
ficient state officer that ever held such a position; and
on comparing the impotency of this country with the
potency of Rome, supported as her authority was by
French bay onete, the Cardinal must say " representa-
tive Governments and constitutional kingdoms are after
all a farce." After giving credit to the Noble Lord for
his expressed intention of resisting the insult offered to
the Crown, and vindicating the independence of the na-
tion, it would be showing but little deference to the opi-
nions of his constituents if he did not at once liberate
himself from the pledge which he had given, and declare
that he no longer cousidered himself bound to support a
measure which in his conscience he believed to be to-
tally inefficient.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. STANFOItD said the Noble Lord must certainly
feel disappointed at the reception which this paltry mea-
sure had 'net; and it was a very bad one when the Hon.
Member f ;r Oxford indulged in metaphorical pleasantry
on the occasion. If he (Mr. Stanford) were asked to ex-
press his opinion on the same speech, he should say this,
that he had been under the impression that the Noble
Lord last week, like another very distinguished per-
former, was about to take his final leave of the stage;
but now, from the announcement made this evening by
her Mejesty'e servants, it appeared that the old company
was to appear for the second time this season on Friday
next, in " Papal Aggression," a serio-comic drama, with
the fifth act left out.—(Hear, and laughter.) After wh;ch
the House was to be indulged with the popular drama
of "The Budget," the unrivalled clown of the establish-
ment undertaking to jump clean through the windows
(Laughter)—and the entertainments were to wind up
with the " Cr) etal Palace." This might be a very plea-
sant programme, but he doubted whethr the Noble Lord
and his aompeny would give any great satisfaetion either
to the boxe-, pit, or gallery; and he would advise th
Noble Lord to take warming by what befel Romeo Coates.
The only part of the pertormance of that celebrated man
which met with any applause was that in which he gay.
up the ghost.—(Laughter.) In enaction that part Ro
meo Coates was always called upon to die again, and so
might the Noble Lord with regard to this measure.—
(Hear, hear.) But to treat the matter seriously. He
had paid great attention to the speeches or the most
eminent and distinguished statesmen, and it was univer-
sally admitted that it would be unwise and nexpedient
to dissolve Parliament. He believed that all the Mem-
bers of the Howe would endeavour to support the Go-
vernment in getting through the bu,iness of the country,
and that no intention existed of offering them any fac-
tious opposition. There was no insurmountable ob-
stacle, except the financial plans of the Go-
vernment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
so modify his plan as to do justice to the agricultural
class, by placing them in the same position as
persons in trade, establishing the prieciple that were
there is no profit there shall be no tax; if he could only
do common justice to the trailing interests of the country
by mekieg a distinction between the sum levied on
realie el property and fluctuating mower a and mercan-
tile profits, he had not the least doubt !hat the Hon.
Gentleman's financial and fiscel difficulties woal4 be
easily overcome. But one monstrous difficulty remained
behind, which, aft r the explanations given this evening,
had not been removed—he meant the question of Papal
aggression. He should be sorry to say anything to hurt
the feelings of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen.
He wished them to retain perfect freedom of conscience,
and those liberties which were so justly prized by all
classes. But he did believe that if ever the vox popuii
vox Dei had been illustrated it had been so on the present
occasion; and he considered the measure of the Right
Hon. Baronet would be sufficient to irritate many, whilst

It would be useful to none.—(Hear, hear.) It was ad-
mitted by the Noble Lord that the Bishop of Rome has
infringed international law; and this point was clearly
raised by Vattel, who proved that the Bishop of
Rome invaded the law of nations when he attacked

the prerogatives of Sovereigns by appointing persons
with ecclesiastical titles, and giving them territorial ju-
risdiction. If the Government did not think it wise or
prudent to punish such an act, surely Parliament ought
to express its opinion on the subject. It would be un-
wise to make this a casus Belli, and attack the Pope, for
the policy of the Pope would survive whatever might
be done; but it was undobtedly right that Parliament
should re-echo the sentiments of the people. Sir Ed-
ward Segden said the law had been infringed; but the
law officers of the Crown had declined to put the law in
motion. If they had thought it right to pass an Act to
render the law more operative, perhaps they would have
satisfied the people better; but he considered the pre-
sent measure most inadequsta, and believed that it
would cause the greatest pesiible dis.atiefaction. fie
thought it desirable to follow the precedent set in 1801.
when Parliament appointed simultaneous C• 11103111,0"
of both Houses, each having power to communicate with
the other for at this time it was most necessary to tska
into consideration the relation of Roman Catholics to the
Coostitution and the Sovereign.—(Hesr, hear.)
Mr. PLU I,IP CBE agreed Kith the Noble L. oppo-
site that the proper mode of dealing will this subjeet
was by direct I.gislation, f.r the appointment of Cow-
mattes would lead to a great deal of delay, without
being productive of any good cons. quences. The Noble
Lord had charanerieed the proceedings of the Pope as
an insolent sod insidious aggression; and it he itioi.ght
it right to meet that aggression b.? legislation, he ought
to have done so in an etfcatual way; but the omission of
the second and third clauses of the Bill would neutralise
any good effect it might have had ;and if passed into a
law in its amended shape, he believed the measure would
be of little practical utility.—(Hear, hoar.) The N. ble
Lord objected very properly to the synodical action of
the Church of Rome, but he did not propose by this Bill
to touch that synodical action. He trusted, however,
the Noble Lord would devise some way of ewe,i„g that
evil, end lase the evil resulting from the admission of
Papal bulls into this couutry.—(Hear, hear.) The
present measure would not give salisf.ction to the
people of this couetry.—(Hear, hear.) The Protestant
people of this country had no wish to show a per-
secuting spirit towards their Roman Catholic coun-
trymen. This was not a pers,culing country.
Toleration was carried to its utmost limits. But the Pro-
testant people of this country were acquainted in some
measure with the character Of the Church of Rome, both
from the past history of the world and its delineation in
Hely Writ. The Protestant people of this country
would give the Roman Catholics free toleration for the
exercise of their religion, bat they did not wish to be
persecuted themselves; they wished to retain the full
and free exercise of their religion, and were afraid of the
Church of Rome attaining that power at whieh she was
aiming,--(flear, hear.) The Protestant people 01 this
country were a roligi,,u, people— a Bible-loving pe.ple—
who would not abandon their tight of private tudgmet,t;
bat they knew that the Church of Rome, wnerever it
obtained predominance, interfered with the right of pri-
vate judgment, and forbade the free use of the Scripture:,
for the Protestant people of this country felt great zeal
for the honour of their Queen, but above all they were
animated by an earnest zeal for the honour of God and
the maintenance of the truth. They felt that in this ag-
gression made by the Church of Rome on this country
those things which they most deeply prize aro greatly in
danger, and therefore they had been most deeply and
justly excited on the subject.—(Rear, hear.) He was
afraid the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord would not
satisfy the just expectations of the people, or the case
which it was intended to meet; but he trusted that it
would receive such amendments in Committee as would
render it a satisfactory and efficient measure.—(Hear.)
Mr. FAGAN contended that no insult bad been
offered to the country by the Pope of Rome, for it was
quite clear that no insult was intended. The object
which the Pope had in view was altogether of a spiritual
nature, and the step taken by him was intended for the
spiritual government of the Roman Catholics in this
country. He was corroborated in his opinion that no
insult had been offered to this country by the opinion of
an English Protestant bishop (the Bishop of St. David's),
who distinctly stated that no insult was intended.—
(Hear, hear.) So far as the present measure had a ten-
dency to infringe the great principles of religious liberty,
he should feel it his duty to give it every opposition.
Colonel SIBTHORP considered the observations of
the Hon. Member for Oxford quite premature, when he
pronounced a enlogitua eta the Idoblo Lord tuid thauked