The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY

cemenendam, and not to a dissenting church, such as
!Ise at present the Roman Catholic is I-elend.—(Hear.)
!Aloes ea•e was thereture no precedent iu this instance,
for when Lalor was tried the belief in tee Rod an Ca-
tholic religion was proscribed in this country, and it
Fonsequeatly had no benefices or other property. Lalor
had, however, done what would have been illegal at any
time—he had (the Hon. and Learned Gentleman quoted
?ore the State Trials) instituted divers persons to the
lienefices containing the cure of souls, had pronounced
divorcee, and had performed all other acts pertaining to
the spiritual jurisdiction. But passing that period alto-
gether, and coming down to later legislation, he (Mr.
4eogh) had a right to appeal to the Noble L .rd, net as
a lawyer, but as a man legislating for all classes of her
1 41ftivsty's subjects. Turning to the legi,la ion of 1846,
(Mr, Keogh) asked the attention of the Hon. Member
for' Ripen to the fact as regarded the statute of that
Year, whether it was the intention of the Government of
that day to keep in force the ancient laws referred to by
the Noble Lord and the leeal advisers of the Crown?
Turning to that statute, so cavalierly treated by the
Solicitor-Gen —it was not the only Act he treated
cavalierly, though it certainly was easy enough for him
to done in front nt 250 Nitnist-rialists, and with the an-
tWering jeers of 300 or 400 Members of the Opposi-
tion—he (Mr. K.oesh) called the attention of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman to the mistakes 4.f his pre-
decessors an& coil-nen:ls in this matter. The 6-h sec-
tion of the Aen of 1816 stated that the consideration of
CI charitable dunce in and concerning the usages and
discipline of. the Roman Catholic Church should be re-
ferred to a Committee of the Commissioners appointed
ender-the Act. professing the Roman Catholic religion;
thet,whon' by reason of any division, a dispute should
arise, this Committee should certify who, according to
the 'usage- and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church,
should take the devise or bequest in question, and that
the'Commiesioners, in Which were included Protestants
Wedl tea Catholics—the Protestant Archbishop of Ar-
taagh and others—were bound by the Act of Parliament
to acknowledge the usage and discipline of the Reniau
Catholic Church, as certified to them by the Roman Ca-
tholic hishopi.—(Hear, hear.) The 15th section of the
Act enabled persons to convey property for the use and
maintenance of the archbishops, bishops, deans, &c.. of
the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. He (Mr. K),
tinder these circumstances, asked the Solicitor-General
how was it to be ascertained who was archbishop or
bishop according nfthe usage of the Roman Catholic
Church? Was it not by reference to the bull creating
them?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. K.) cast aside the
bonsense about the Synod of Thurlee; also the letters
attributed to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and he
asked the Noble Lord to refer to the official demand ad-
dressed to the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, by
Lord Castlereagb, in the Government of Mr. Pitt, as to
Whence they derived their titles, what was their income
&c. It was dated August, 1799, and will be found in
the second volume of " Lord Castlereagh's Memoirs,"
Its addressed to Dr Troy. " Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin," together with the :in-
sisters thereto, signed by the " R4man " Catho-
lie Metropolitans of Armagh, Dublin, Team, and
Cashel. With this fact before him, did the Noble Lord
Pretend to ignore the existence of the Roman Catholic
Church in Ireland? Did the Solicitor-General mean to
tiny that the Legislature of 1844, with the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth at its head, intended
to leave room for the Government to come down in
1851 with a Bill such as that of the Noble Lord—" a
thing of shreds and patches," borrowed from both sides
of the. House—to destroy the religious liberties of a
third.of the people of this country? The Master of the
Rolls, in the earlier discussions. on the Bill, said that
things should be done in as quiet a manner as possible.
Ie (Mr. Keogh) called the attention of the House to the
insidiousness of the words. The Solicitor-General,
however, when pressed by the Hon. Member for Dun-
dalk, said that the Bill did nothing, except declare the
law as it stood. He (Mr. Keogh) asked the Noble Lord
if there was a shadow'.of a doubt on the case, was he
Prepared to pass the clause, The House of Commons
had: been for the last thirty years trying to set right the
legislation of centuries: was the Noble Lord prepared to
Peralyse those efforts by placing under the ban the re-
ligion of one-third of the people?—(Hear.) The asser-
tion of the Solicitor-General was hastily and indis-
ereetly made; in Ireland the hierarchy had been always
existent—there were no vicars apostolic. The clause
Under notice, however, would render illegal the source
and fountain whence that hierarchy derived its ecele-
liastical authority. Was it desirable to do this? Was
the Government prepared to adopt the clause of a poli-
tical opponent? He (Mr. Keogh) called on the Noble
Lord in conclusion to restrict the application of the
reeasnre; and he moved, therefore, with the view of pre-
serving the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Ire-
land, that the word "England" should be inserted in
the clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I had expected to hear from the
Ilon. and Learned Gentleman an argument to prove
that the clause before the House is not founded on law.
bear.) We have heard from Hon. and Learned
members on every side of the House that this clause is
explicit—that it lays down the law of England as it
stands—and that it cannot be contravened by any law.
I have listened in vain for any proof that this is not the
case in the speech of the. Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has told the House
for the third or fourth time that the Bill is inoperative;
but as for argument to show it, he has not favoured us
With any. What is the evil which is proposed to be
/Mended? A. rescript of the Pope, or a paper purport-
ting to be a rescript, has appeared, founding an arch-
bishopric to be called the Archbishopric of Westminster,
and founding various bishoprics in subordination to it,
much as the bishoprics of Birmingham, Southwark, Clif.
14351, and twelve other sees.—(Hear, hear.) It was
affirmed in the preamble of the original Bill that the
attempt to establish such sees and provinces was illegal
and void e and in conformity with that preamble
this clause says, that " that rescript therefore shall,
and shall be deemed to be, unlawful and void."
One would expect, under these circumstances, that
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman would show
that tho See of Rome had power and authority by law
to establish archbishoprics and bishoprics in this country
before lie called on the House to reject this clause. Has
th Remand Learned Gentleman done so?—(Hear.) If
be has lion then he has not made an argument against
the clause.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man has raised various arguments against the extension
of this clause to Ireland, but as to the chief affirmation
!Nest it, he has shown no cause whatever for comply-
lag with his desire. I next come to the assertion of the
true discrepancy between the statements of the Hon.
Learned
Lenrned Member for Micihurst and my Hun. and
Friend the Solicitor-General. The Hon. and
tteearned Member for Midhurst is asked if the clause ap-
Plied to England; and he replies that it did, because it is
sneciallen calculated to apply to the rescript of the 29th
of September, at which it was expressly aimed. The
'night Hon. Member for the University of Oxford then
Raid if this was the effect of the clause it would get the
Government into great contradiction with itself ; for
that they were about to say it was unlawful for the Pope
to establish a bishopric in England, while it was left
topen to !aim to create in Ireland any see he wished, and
ae referred to the new bishopric of Ross recently
established in that country. Whereupon the Solicitor•
General said, "It by no means followed, for that
the clause did not apply specially to England alone, but
Was a declaration of the law by Parliament, that if it
Was illegal to establish sees in England it was therefore
Illegal to establish them in Ireland, seeing that the law
all the subjeot was the same in both countries since
oyning's Act, and that the courts of law would so in-
terpret it."—elear, hear.) I have, however, yet to learn
that these answers are at variance.—(Hear, hear.) If
they are not, then is there no discrepancy between the
affirmations of the Hon. and Learned Member for Mid-
burst and my lion. Friend the Solicitor-General. But,
said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, if this be the
ease. the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion is
Practically forbidden in Ireland. The Hou. and Learnnd
Gentleman, however, made no way in showing this te: be
the case, nor in proving that the law in Ireland gave
the Pope more power to establish sees and provinces
than it gives him in this country. The Hon. and, Learned
Gentleman began by contradicting the authority of
Lalor's case as not good law in this.
Mr. KEOGH explained. He did no say so. Ho
laid, if it was based on these grounds, Vnat it would be
Within the le,w.

Lord J. VITSSELL—It was no desubt part of the case;
but could the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in
Ireland be forbidden if the case did not apply?—(Hear,
hear.) The statute under wh;.ch Lslor was convicted,
however, was a statute passe.d when the Reman Catholic
religion was the religion of the country—namely, the
Act Richard II.; and therefore the argument of the
Ron. and Learn. ei Gentleman does not apply in the
case. The authority in Lalor's case is, that ho exer-
cised powers de rived from Rome; that is w hat we com-
bat this day.—{Hear, hear.) The Ron.
gives
power
rnetdo
Gentleman fin cis in the Bequests Act some authority
Which, according to his int,srpretation, iv
the Roman Catholic Church to organize itself in Ireland
as it may choose. In all the arguments we have had on
the subject, the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland,
though they might rot assume the titles, are admitted to
have exercised their functions within the ancient die-
eases, and they have not been interfered with so long as
their acts were net in contravention of the law of the
land. That was the state of things which it was wished
to retain, and no reason presented itself why any inter-
ference should be made with the Roman Catholic bishops
in the exercise of their functions. But the Bequests
Act, instead of being, as the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman said, a solemn and public recognition of
the Roman Catholic prelates' powers and authority,
was an Act, as be had before said, carefully, sedu-
lously, and, he would add, skilfully drawn up so as to
avoid suds an iinferenoe. The Aet did not say " bishops
exercising jurisdiction," or, " Roman Catholic prelates
ruling over aui governing dioceses ;" but " bishops offi-
ciating" not vsithin any diocese, but " within any dis-
trict ;" so that whether archbishop, bishop, or vicar
apostolic, the prelate would be recognised by law as a
right rev. prelate " officiating in that district." It
was further considered it might be a question with re-
spect to &VM Catholic priests in any districts in which
they might officiate US to the authority—whether from
the bishop, or iron Rome—by virtue of which they exer-
cised their functions. That difficulty might have caused
considerable embarrassment, for if a case came before the
Court it 'fins seen by the authors of the Bill that Roman
Catholic priests to whom charitable bequests were made
could not take the money bequeathed to them by a title
not legal, or under a doubtful title. It was, however,
provided that questions of such a nature, if they arose,
should be referred so committee composed solely of
Roman Catholic Commissioners, these Commissioners
being requited to decide the question of Itho was to re-
ceive the money according to the rules of their Church,
and to report, not that a certain person was priest of a
particular 'parish, or that a certain person was the
Bishop of Limerick or any other place, bat to report
evil° was to receive benefit according to the in.
stile of the donor, whet* th 3 Eight Rev.

Dr. Ryan, or the Rev. W. O'Connell, or any
other person. This was what the C,nntnis,,ioners
were only to reoort, and therefore no question as
to the assumption of tileg,l titles could com• before the
public. Such was the course taken by the framers of
the Bill, which was introduced for useful purposes, and
which hal been worked out so as to accomplish those
useful purposes. Se, then, with regard to the case of
" Lalor," and also the Bequests Act, the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman had failed to make out that it
came within the lawful authority of the see of Rome to
erect bishoprics and to give jurisdiction over dioceses in
this kingdom. The Hon. anti Learned Gentleman bad
attempted to prove even that the Pope had power to do
this in Ireland. With reepsct to the practical eff.ct of
the Bill, he conceived hardly any part of the Bill—though
a Bill for the United Kiugdoai, and which extended
throughout the United Kingdom—would have any effect
in Ireland. With regard to the bishopric of Galway, it
certainly would prevent soy person from assuming the
ti:le of Bishop of Galway. If any person were ready
to assume the title of Archbishop of Tuarn, it would, no
doubt, affect him, and would render the assumption of
that title unlawful. %With regard to all other matters
in the Bill, it would leave tlenga as nearly as passibl,,
in the same s:ate as they were before it passed. With
regard to the first elause, it declared that to be law
which no Meyer had denied was law—that which the,
Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself had not denied
was law. The first clause only declared that to bn law
which in Ireland, as well as England, was law. With
regard to the second clause, that prevented the assump-
tion of illegal titles by Roman Catholic bishops. If
Roman Catholics bishops did assume titles, it would be
those of existing bishoprics, such as Armagh and Cork,
not the title of new sees. The Bill was directed, as it
ought to be directed, to a particular attempt against the
Crown, the Parliament, and the nation; and the Ed! did
not do anything that was unnecessary to effect that pur-
pose. On the other hand, if the Bill only made a de-
Claration of the law in England it would do this—it
would, give rise to the belief that the Pope might create
any number of new sees in Ireland, notwithstanding the
prerogatives of the Crown, and the, independence of the
nation.—(Hear, hear.) Now that he held to be a great
change of the constitution and of the law, in derogation
of the prerogatives of the Crown and the independence
of the nation.(lL tar, hear.) And he trusted the
House would not give their sanction to any such pro-
ceeding.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord continued, with
animation—" It may suit the purposes of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman and others to make a great agita-
don in Ireland, and to proclaim interdictions from Tuam
that hereafter Roman Catholic bishops and priests would
be driven from Ireland, and their chapels levelled with
the ground—those statements are made to impose on
very ignorant people, but every otie knows in this
House that after the Bill passes there will be perfect
freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics, with the
full and unfettered exercise of their religion.—(Hear,)
Some Hon. Members will, doubtless, get up and say the
Roman Catholics are the best judges of what is best for,
the interests of the Roman Catholic religion. Stop a
little, I say to them. I am ready to say you shall have
everything necessary for the organization of your Church
and for the free exercise of your religion, provided you
do not interfere with the rights and religion of others.
—(Loud cheers.) So long as you confine yourselves to
the appointing of two, four, six, or eight Roman Ca-
tholic bishops' in England, that is a matter with which I
have no concern. Whatever the number of bishops ycu
may think necessary_for the organization of your Church,
I do not intend to interfere with that, but when you
come here and declare you will rule England, her coun-
ties and places, because it is necessary for the interests
of your religion, then I say that under the Act of 1791,
by which Roman Catholic priests were free to perform
mass, you might as well say you cannot perform mess
according to the Roman Catholic religion, unless per-
formed in Westminster Abbey; and to that my answer
would be, you may perform your mass in any chapel
you please, but into Westminster Abbey you have no
right to come, and into Westminster Abbey you shan't
come.—(l,oud cheers.) So I say, organize your Church
as you please, only silo w us to preserve our independ-
ence as a nation, and not to be subject to any foreign
power."—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. ROCHE said the Noble Lord had mentioned no-
thing about the archbishopric of Westminster. He had
heard accuswione of all kinds against Irish Members
during the debate, but the strangest accusation against
them had been made by the Noble Lord, who said the
Irish Members had been irrelevant in their proceedings,
because they debwed the question before the House.
There had been no valid reason assigned why Ireland
should not be included in the Bill. The only reason
given by the Noble Lord was, if Ireland was not in-
cluded, the Pope at some future time might erect bi-
shoprics and appoint to new sees, therefore it was neces-
sary to guard the prerogative of the Crown from the
anticipated invasion. It would be impossible to carry
out the Bequests Act without going right in the teeth of
that clause, which extended the Act to Ireland. As to
the charge of getting up bad agitation in Ireland, he
would say, if anything did arise from that bad agitation,
it would be attributable to the conduct of the Noble Lord
himself, who refused to take Ireland out of the Bill. On the
shoulders of the Noble Lord, and not at the door of the Irish
Members, let the consequences be laid. The Irish Roman
Catholic Members objected to this legislation for Eng-
land, because it infringed the rights and liberties of Eng-
lish Roman Catholics. Considering the little that had
been dime for the cure of the physical sufferings of Ireland
by the present Government since they ha come into
power, ho considered it came with a bad grace from the
Noble Lord to refuse to take Ireland cut of the Bill.
Ireland wanted peace and tranquility. This Bill was
uncalled for, and could put as end to those peaceful and
fraternal feelings which were beginning to exhibit
themselves in Ireland between Protestants and Roman
Catholics. The Bill would also operate unjustly on
that honest and hard-working class the landlords of Ire-
land. It would revive religious disputes—religious fa el-
ings, symptoms of which were to be seen in Ulster,
where the bad example of the Noble Lord had been fol-
owed. He warned those persons that the time would
come when they would be not only abandoned by the
Noble Lord, but by the Protestant people of England,
and left stranded and helpless amidst a body of their ex-
asperated Irish Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 39
Against it ... ... 84
Majority against the amendment —45
Mr. KEOGH then moved " Provided that nothing in
the clause shall be construed to interfere with the eccle-
siastical and spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic
archbishops and bishops in Ireland."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the objection to
the proviso was this—that the clause on which the pro-
viso was to be grafted did not affect the position of the
archbishops and bishops in Ireland, unless their juris-
diction and authority were exercised under illegally as-
sumed titles. If they did so exercise their power and
authority, it was impossible to say they did so legally by
that Bill (as we understood).
Mr. KEOGH said the sincerity of her Majesty Go-
vernment could only be tested by such amendments as
these, and it was only by bringing such amendments for-
ward that they had the slightest chance of coming to the
truth. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said it was
unnecessary to include such a proviso in the Bill, for it
would not interfere with the spiritual and ecclesiastical
functions of the Roman Catholic prelates unless exercised
under illegal titles. Tee sophism in that reply was evi-
dent. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman well knew
rßeislcl rtiop t
psr
o o
sre r
there could neither be bishops or archbishops without
letters apostolic. It was intended by the
!ee reacripts or letters apostolic, and all he
now waive?, to avoid was—that the Bill should' interfere
hi which
would
they v saide
them they e dwi dh
onloe t
clausew i wish
twoitihniteh,:fereefuwnicthli.onsHwe
if tleey liked, but let the Noble Lord say in plain lan-
V;eage—let him put in a provision embodying his ides, he
did not care about the language—which would prevent
that interference which he deprecated. The Noble Lord
had said so much about Ireland recently that he would
remind the Noble Lord of a time when he was more
alive to religious liberty in Ireland, and when his opi-
nions were very different en the subject of the two este.-
' bliabments to those which he now maintained. He
wanted to know why the Noble Lord was so jealous
about interfering with the Episcopal Church of Scotland,
which did not number so many as 200,000 nersons, while
the Irish Roman Catholics were 6,000,000? He wanted
to know why the third clause should especially state it
was not to extend to the assumption of titles by the
Episcopal Church of Scotland? Why should not the
I same exemption be accorded to the Roman Catholics of
Ireland that had been granted to the Episcopalians of
Scotland? If the Noble Lord rejected the present pro-
position, he should use all the forms of language to re-
new it, and to tsst the declaration of the Noble Lord in
favour of religious liberty.
Mr. A. B. HOPE had always voted with the small
minority on this question, but could not support the pre-
sent proposition of the Hon. Member for Athlone, bee
cause he considered it to be antagonistic to the free ad-
ministration of religious liberty. Besides, he did not
see why such an amendment should be limited to the
Roman Catholics of Ireland.

Mr. KEOGH had no wish to separate the case of the
community,
C Roman athtlica -Of. Ireland from that of the rest of the
nitY. and he should therefore eo far alter his
amendment-
Mr-
as to include the United Kingdom.
43-r- ANSTEY was surprised there should be any op-
Position to the amendment, for if the preamble were not
greatly altered, lhe. clause, with or without the amend-
ment, would not
to the people though not ne taapply to Ireland. The amendment,
lead, before the might make the clause less objec-
tionableßilpiteof Ireland, and above all it might
agitation
altogether from the Bill. Be
a clause exempting Irelanda3f) Jaw, to the introduction of
regretted that the
had not been directed solely and
diteussion on this ques-
tionmerni:epeuking on this subject on
Ire-
land from the measure. On
bolely to the exclusion of
Friday night the lion.
Carlow had alluded
(Mr. Anstey's) to what ho was pleased to call reifs"
teme-
rity in the allegations ho had madeitte onb this subject. lie
Member laid such stress
a to more than
,I was glad to find that the Hon.
1 on the authority of Lerd Sterol:ash
1 Roman Catholics had signed their naaFne. The English
one declaretion on this matter, and z4ore_eccadoes
than one the eentitnente they had expressed
all contradictory end ineensiettut with each wocjbec "2llrlY
for one, therefore, paid not the slightest deference" Ha
the declaration ref -rred to by the Hoe. Member. Reo
begged the attention of the lion. Gentleman to the very
important declaration by the clergy of Beverley on this
subject, every paragraph of which had been contradicted
by all the persons except one who had signed it. In
that declaration the clergy of Beverley not onlv pro-
tested against the rescript, but they addressed Dr.
Wiseman, and asked for the establishment of such
an ecclesiastical government as might be in ac-
cordance with the free constitution and equitable
laws of this country—they deprecated the intro-
duction of any new foreign system of ecclesiastical law
as hostile to the feelings of the people by whom they
were surrounded, and they contended that the attempted
restoration Of the hiinardysinstasid of cmdtioing to Slag

alvantaee of the Catholic religion; would be the cense of
its dettrioreten in England. That address was pre-
eented to ur. Wiseman, and the result was, that in two
or three days afterwards every one of the subscribers
received a circular from the Vicar General of York,
along with the draft of an address which they were re-
quested to sign, if approved of, and to return it by post.
lie believed that only two of the clergy who bad signed
the former address had refused to sign the address sent
to them by the Vicar- General, which contained a distinct
retraceation of every sentiment expressed in the first
address, and an expression of gratitude to Dr. Wiseman
for having restored the hierarchy.—(Hear.) He was
ieformed that the two clergymen who had so refused to
stultify themselves had been, he would not say suspended,
from their incumbencies, but had been displaced.—
(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Tipperary had asked
him what proof he could produce of the assertion which
he had male regarding the petition to the Pope. The
House was no doubt aware that in 1837 the late Pope
put forth a document with regard to a hierarchy, and
propceed to refer to the clergy themselves the
duty of settling their own form of government. Every-
, thing was to be done here, and nothing at Rome.
The clergy ay well as the laity accepted the proposal
with alacrity, but it was not agreed to at Rome, Dr,
Wisemae, who was then agent there, having objected to
the scheme as trencbine toe much on episcopal autho-
rity. Petitions were therefore sent to -the Pope from
certain Roman Catholies here offering to stand by him
against the bishops, and to one of those petitions the
Hon. Member fur Tipperary had put his name.—(Hear,
hear.) In that petition the Hon. Member, among others,
told the Pope that so far from this country being ripe
for a hierarchy, it waa in all probability doomed to re-
main for generations a missionary country, and he called
on the Pope to protect the priests as well as the laity in
this country against the attempts that were csonteal-
,plated by certain parties at Rome. • That was the an-
swer he had to make to the Hon. Member for Tipperary.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY wished to
ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman whether he ad-
dressed the House as a Catholic or not?—(oh, oh!)
Mr. ANS FEY rose amid cries of " Don't answer."
He sail as a question had been put to him, he should
like, if in order, to answer it. He should be exceedingly
sorry to retaliate on the Noble Lord, but could not re-
train from expressing his astonishment that any Member
should commit the unpardonable insolence of putting
such a question to another Member touching his religion.
—(Cheers.) If permitted to answer the Noble Lord, he
might say he was to the full as good a Catholic as the
Noble Lord.—(Cheers.)

The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that was
all he wanted. The question, he thought, was a fair
one.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") When the Hon. and
Learned. Gentleman got up and expressed sentiments
totally at variance with the feelings of the great body of
the Catholics of this country, he thought be had a right
to ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman if he spoke as a
Catholic or not.—(Expressions of dissent.) The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman being a Catholic was no doubt
aware how Catholics changed their minds, for he recol-
lected the Hon. and Learned Gentleman once making a
speech of five hours against the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, and yet, when the Hon. and
Learned Member for Sheffield brought forward, last
year, his motion for a vote of confidence in that Noble
Lord, the Hon. and Learned Member for Youghal sup-
ported it. With respect to the signatures to the paper
alluded is by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman he knew
nothing, but he presumed that, after some consideration,
those who had signed it thought better of the matter.—
(Laughter.) However that might be, he did not deny
that among English Catholics—as among other reli-
gious bodies—there might be a few discontented mem-
bers opposed to the discipline which the head of the
Church thought it his duty to impose.
Mr. NAPIER did not think there was any difference
between the law of England and the law of Ireland on
this question. Lalor was doubly convicted—first on the
Act of Elizabeth, and again on the Act of Richard
11., which still remained the law of the land. Allusion
had been made to the Charitable Bequests Act,
but he had never known any of the diocesan or paro-
chial documents brought into a court of law. He
observed with regret the attempt made to mislead the
people of Ireland as to the nature of this measure, which
was purely defensive in its character, and aimed not
against the Roman Catholic religion in this country, but
against ultramontanism.—(Hear, hear.) It had been
admitted by the ultramontane press that the appoint-
ment of Dr. Cullen was a first attempt on the part of
the Pope to the usual mode of nominating
bishops in Ireland. In his opinion they had nothing to
do with matters of discipline, but only with overt acts,
and to saw whether or not they were in accordance with
the laws of the land. If the Pope's rescript was not a
lawful document, and if certain restrictions in conse-
quence of it were to be imposed on Roman Catholics,
who was to blaeneP—(Hear, bear.) He was clearly of
opinion that it was an unlawful document.
Mr. ANSTEY said a difference existed in the law of
Ireland and England on this subject. The Emancipation
Act tolerated a hierarchy in Ireland, but only permitted
the system of vieers apostolic in England.
Mr. M. GIBSON understood the Hon. and Learned
Member for Athlone to consent to extend his amend-
ment to the United Kingdom. When they considered
the monstrous injustice of forcing the Irish people to
pay for a Church they did not acknowledge, and, in the
next place, of telling them that they should not have the
Church of their own choosing, he thought there were
strong reasons why Ireland should be included in the
amendment. They had imposed Protestant bishops upon
Ireland, and yet they would not allow the Roman Ca-
tholics in Ireland to have bishops of their own.—(Hear,
hear.) There was, in fact, something so unjust in the
whole of this proceeding that he could hardly condescend
to enter into the details. New declaring that bulls ap-
pointing bishops were void, and those bishops ordaining
priests, he wished to know did they mean to declare that
such ordination was unlawful? They had, to use the
words of Jeremy Taylor," suffered disobedience to grow
into Custom ;" and yet they were now reviving an old
law for the purpose of persecution. And, doing this,
they did not provide against common informers proceed-
ing against Raman Catholic bishops. " They ought to
provide that no proceeding by indictment could be in-
stituted, without the consent of The Crown. They
ought to do this, for there could be' no doubt that the
animus of the whole proceeding was the old No
Popery" cry, for there was a desire in this country to
check by psnal legislation the progress of the Roman
Catholic religion:—(Hear, hear.)
Sir H. W. BARRON observed that they had allowed
the law for the last hundred years to be violated; and
now there was a revival of the.old law. They made of
tbat old a new law, for the purposes of persecution; and
the men who did this were playing a double game with
a double face. He believed the
.measure was introduced
by a party in that House for the purpose of raising a
popular cry in its favour. It 'was to create discord in
that House amongst those who would be otherwise
united on general subjects. Was there any man in or
out of that House who had the audacity to say that the
Queen's prerogative was invaded by the appointment of
Roman Catholic bishops? The Queen had no preroga-
tive for appointing Roman Catholic bishops. The Queen
never had appointed Roman Catholic bishops. It had
been asserted that the act of the Pope was an insult to
this country; but in what sense, ho asked, could it be so?
How were they insulted? How were they invaded?
What civil or religious rights had been taken from
them? Had the Roman Catholic bishops taken posses-
sion of any of the glebes of the Established Church? He
contended that the Roman Catholics had the right, as
free born men in a free country, to exercise their reli-
gion according to its written law; and if Government
desired to abolish that religion, let them do it openly
and not underhandedly. He should give the clause his
most decided opposition.
Captaiu TAYLOR said that not having had the op-
portunity of addressing the. House upon the second
reading of the Bill, he was desirous of stating that he
was !Luscious the House should record its strong disap•
probation of what had been termed the Papal aggres-
sion, and repel it in the most vigorous manner. But he
must say be did not think the Bill did that. At the
close of last autumn he, in common with many others,
was misled by the letter of the Noble Lord into the be-
lief that immediately upon the meeting of Parliament
come measure would be 'proposed in accordance with
that letter; but he cont eel that he was grievously dis-
appointed when he roe. a details of the Ecclesiastical
Assumption Bill, nd saw how weak and ineffec•
tive its clauses were.—(Hear, hear.) For his part, he
preferred ibe passing of a resolution declaratory of the
illegality of the measures taken by the Papacy, and the
appointment of a Committee to examine into the ex-
isting state of the law, and report as to the mode in
which the evil complained of might best be met.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that that " defender of the
faith," the lion. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall),
had on Friday night proposed that there should be
morning sittings until this Bill had passed through the
House. That proposition was an insult to the Irish
Members, and the small minority of English Members
who had voted with them; 'and whose names should be
oh, and laughter.) "They might utter their'' Ohs I"
written, to their eternal honour, in letters of gold.—
(Oh,
and their ironical cheers if they pleased; but he repeated
peopla.—(Renewed laughter.) He should not
that their names should be engraven upon the hearts of
pthu 3t
thelr converse,ish and tell the majority how their names
would be received in Ireland.—(ob, oh.) He believed
that majority had been driven to the adoption of the
course on which they had entered. They were, in fact,
talking to 'their constituents, and voting in order that the
division lists might be read at the hustings; because
they know they had evoked a spirit of bigotry and into-
rs
lerattee that might cost them their seats in the event of
) He spoke it
dissolutiona
venture to name, who had told him that they wished the
advisedly.
He of
knew Parl
more iatnenHt.—on(. (I,mobh.e than he would
Bill was at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean; but they
had been coerced to vote for it by a spirit of intolerance
which it was impossible for them to resist.—(oh, oh.)
The Hon. Member for Marylebone had stated that the
opponents to this Bill were placing impottent business
is abeyance. He (sir. Reynolds) would be glad to know
what important bueintss was to be found upon the paper?
Had the Government put upon it any proposal to ex-
tend the Petliamentary franchise? Nu; they had post-
d • session, in the hope that they would
pone._ it until ;4.0 • , •
then be aisle to make a Cab-i-net question of it.—
(Laushter.) Had they proposed any measure to re-
lieve the working men of England and Scotland from
the intolerable pressure of indirect taxstion.—(oh, oh,
and cries of " Question, question.")'
They had not. Had
they put upon the paper any notice of a motion to relieve
the hard-working professional man from the grievous
burden of the incornedax? No ; they had not.—(Re-
newed cries of " Oh, oh," and Question.") What mea-
sure of importance had the Government upon the paper?
—(Question, question.) Now, he hoped the Committee
wnutd permit the business before them to be done in a
proper manner--(Loud cries of " Question" from Mr.
Wawn.) He (Me. Reynolds) hoped the Hon. Member
for South Shields would conduct himself in -a sober mall'
nor.7(Cri,:s et"-Order; Orden') He tri4ed, that he

, would not be compelled to repeat that observation. On
Saturday nigbt
1 Mr. WA W N—No, no ; not Sagearday.—(Laughter.)
Mr. REYNOLDS (turtling round and looking signi•
ficantly at Mr. Wawn, who sat upon one of the extreme
benches at the extreme end of the opposition side of the
House) said that the lion. Gentleman had again thought
proper to interrupt him.
Mr. WAWN—Mr. Chairman, I rise to order. I want
to know whether the Hon. Member for Dublin is to
speak truth or falsehood in this House.—(Order.)
The CHAIRMAN—The Lion. Member for South
Shields has made use of words which are clearly
disorderly.
Mr. WAWN—I br,g pardon, Sir, if I have said any-
thing disorderly; but I wish to ask you or any other
Member of this House what you or he was doing on
Saturday night?—;Roars of laughter.)
Mr. REYNOLDS—It had been often said that a
child might ask a quesion which it would puzzle a
philosopher to answer.—(Hear, hear.) He dared say
that it would be almost impossible to ask him (the
Chairman) a question that would puzzle him more to
answer than that—what they were all doing on last
Saturday night?—(Laughter.) Passing, however, frem
that subject, he would refr to the motions of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncomhe) and the
Hon. and Learn d Member for Abingdon (Sir F. The-
siger), in discussing which but a very small portion of
the night was occupied. He thought, it, therefore, un-
reasonable to censure the Irish Members for occupying
the time of the Howe. Bat he intended not to make
an apology for himself or his Hon. Friends; for let it be
understood that this was a life and death question with
them. There was involved in this question one whether
they were to have free altars or not? He would not say
" happy homes," for by their ill-direeted legislation they
had put an end to happy homes in Ireland.—(•` Hear
from the Irish Members.) The Noble Lord at the head
of the Government said that this Bill would be as
mild a measure in Ireland as could be proposed.
How, then, would the Noble Lord be able to satisfy
the Members who were supporting him from the
Opposition benches? If this measure were such
a one as the Noble Lord described it, it was then
evident that he was passing bad coin upon the
sound Protestant Members of that House, and he (Mr.
Reynolds) doubted net but that they would vote against
him if they believed his statement in this respect to be
quite true. He wished to put a question to the Noble
Lord who, he supposed, was somewhat tired of answer-
ing questions asked him by the opponents of his Bill.
He (Mr. Reynolds) dared say that the Noble Lord was
disposed to call them animated notes of interrogation.—
(Langhter.) His question to the Noble Lordwas—Did
he intend this Bill, in all its integrity, to apply to Ire-
land? The Solicitor-General °aid " No, not in terms;"
but by the construction of an Irish judge it would ex-
tend to Ireland. But the Hon. Member for Midburst,
in saying that it would not extend to Ireland, gave very
different reasons for such an opinion. But even if it be
only confined to England, he would tell them on the part
of Ireland that they were prepared to stand by the Eng-
lish Catholics to the very end of the struggle. This was
more their battle than that of the Irish people. The Irish
Catholics were strong, but the English were weak; and
the Irish Catholic representatives would fight the cause
for them with as much zeal and perseverance as their
own. He intended not to use menacing language towards
the authors of this Bill, but if they passed an Act that
would impose pains and penalties upon the Catho-
lic hierarchy of Ireland it would be a dead letter, for no
Government would have the power to carry it into
effect. How did the Noble Lord reconcile his present
insulting, bigotted, and he would almost call it atrocious
legislation with his former political acts regarding Ire-
land ?—(Hear, hear.) In a speech delivered by the
Noble Lord in 1835, in the discussion upon the appro-
priation clause debate, the Noble Lord spoke ably and
argumentatively, as he always did except on the Papal
Aggression Bill—(Laughter)—for upon that he breaks
down—he was doing a job that neither God nor nature
intended for him. The work was too heavy for him,
and he was unable to get through it himself, and indeed
he had not obtained much assistance from his colleagues.
—(Hear, hear.) But to refer to his speech in 1835,
when he was speaking of the Protestant Church in Ire-
land with all its temporal abominations, the Noble Lord
then said that the entire number of Protestants in Ire-
land could hardly be stated higher than 750,000, to sup-
port the clergy of whom the enormous sum of 800,000/.
a year was exacted from the population, of which
the remainder were Roman Catholics. The Noble
Lord then referred to a number of dioceses for the pur-
pose of showing the extraordinary disproportion that
existed between the Catholic and Protestant population
of Ireland.

Mr. WAWN—What year was that?
Mr. REYNOLDS continued—The Noble Lord then
ended his speech with this resolution:—" That this House
resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for
the purpose of considering the temporalities of the
Church of Ireland." The Noble Lord having then car-
ried his motion the Ministry of the day were dislodged,
and the appropriation clause was from that shy placed
in the tomb of all the Capulets.—(Laughter and cheers.)
The Protestant Church of Ireland was in all its tem-
poral integrity, although the Noble Lord had been Prime
Minister of the country for many years.—(Bear, hear.)
Up to this hour the Noble Lord had never even whis-
pered a word about the Irish Protestant Church, except
for the purpose of strengthening it, nor sheathe tempo-
ralities of that Church but to increase them. The pre-
sent measure, which would subject an Irish Catholic
bishop to a penalty of 1001., or in default of payment to
be conveyed to a felons' gaol, was the Noble Lord's ap-
propriation clause for Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Why, it
was enough to make the blood boil in the veins of an
Irish Catholic with indignation. He appealed to the
English Members of that House to say how they would
like to be treated as the Irish Roman Catholics were
treated. In 1841 Ireland contained a population of
8,200,000. Famine had done its work since.
But there was an artificial famine and a
Government famine abroad. His country people were
dying in the workhouses, which were properly called
slaughter-houses, dying on an average at the rate of
2,000 a week, for want of the common necessaries of
life. And the remedy for all their wants was this in-
sulting and atrocious Bill. Why was the Protestant
Church the Established Church of England? Why was
the Presbyterian Church the Established Church of.
Scotland? Why, because the majority of the people in
either country belonged to the Protestant and Presby-
terian Churches. But why was the Protestant Church
the Established Church of Ireland? For reasons diame-
trically opposite.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There
were some English Members of Parliament who were
no doubt remarkable for the bump of self-esteem, which
was so large that it neutralised every other bump.
Such Members as these had told the Catholic Members
of that House that if they occupied any
more of their
time they would have day sittings—(Hear, hear.) Well,
he (Mr. Reynolds) would say, let them commence their
day sittings, and then they would see which would be
tired first.—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord was a kind
of lay Pope over the Established Church. But to pass
on to the Hon. and Learned Member for Youghal (Mr.
Anstey), who had borne false witness against the creed
he prof,ssed—(" Question," from Mr. Wawn.)
Mr. LAWLESShere rose to order. He said it was
quite true that they were a small party, determined to
oppose a Bill which they considered of a most unjust and
persecuting character; but he appealed to that House
whether the interruptions which were so frequently
offered to the Hon. Member for Dublin by the Hon.
Member for South Shields were not disorderly ?
Mr. WAWN said he had not interrupted the speaker
when he was speaking to the question. But when he
REYNOLDS
the cause of his creed and hisid and to call him to order.
said it was rather too bad, when he
'
diverged to other topics he claimed it to be his privilege.
tow was
ms callr
endeavouring
"Quest
erjspl ion,
s
country, that he was to be exposed to these interruptions.
The only excuse he could make for the Hon. Gentle Man
was that he was not perfectly conscious of what he was
doing.—(Order, order.)
Mr. WAWN again rose to order. He wanted to
kno
wif'as an independent Member of that House, he
felt himself called upon to discharge a duty expected
from him by his constituents, it was right for the Hon.
Member for Dublin to hold out language calculated to
intimidate him in the discharge of his duty?
Mr. REYNOLDS said that when he was last inter-
rupted he was referring to the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Youghal. He first thought that he ought not to
refer to that Hop. and Learned seentlemen, recollecting
that he was a lawyer, and knowing that all lawyers had
a laudable anxiety to promote their own interest wher-
ever they went.—(Hear, and laughter.) But the Hon.
and Learned Member bore false witness to his creed.
He (Mr. Reynolds) would not allow him or any one else
to do so with perfect impunity. But the Hon. and
Learned Member was cheered when he was making
those statements. No one called him to order when he
was calumniating his creed. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman reminded him, on those occasions when he
(Mr. Reynolds) had the pain to hear him speaking on
with
whose Bill, of a passage in the poetry of that bard with
whose name Ireland was closely. identified.. In speaking
of her representative; who, as in this case, were not al-
ways her sons, ho might say—
" Upraised are her sons till they've learned to betray;
Undistinguished they live if they shame not their sires.`
torch that would light them to dignity's way
Must be caught from the pile where their country expires."
He thanked God he (Mr. Anstey) was not an Irishman,_
and he was reminded by an Hon. Gentleman to thank
h
God that he was not. an Englishman. He might call
"the disowned"—but he deeply regretted he was
an Irish representative, representing a Roman Catholic
community. The gratitude which he exhibited towards
them in that House was to record his vote when he
could against their religious liberty; to calumniate them,
and libel them in the senate of the nation. He might be
told the Bill would pass, and that it was folly to oppose
it. He hoped no Irish representative would enunciate
such sentiments in that House. It was now nearly four
months since the Bill had been laid before the Hours,
and they had not yet passed one clause of five lines
long, and it was not clear to him that they would ever
.
pass it. The m,u who were prorsing it knew it could
not witrk; that their declarations and the clause wars in-
that religious liberty could c:inup tible; not exist in
England or Ireland if the cl.-iuse pzsiod; the:efore ho
believed that airy themselves must back out of it. But
it bad been said that either that Bill or a worse one
would be passed. He told the House that the SUMO
power which strangled the present Bill would strangle
a worse one. At all events the opponents of the
measure bad elicited a discussion which had put the
question in its true light. They had dispelled the
cloud of error which pervaded the country on the sub-
ject; and row those who had been most anxious
for the Bill were beginning to see that the sooner they
got rid of it the better. They saw that it was a Bill of
pains and penalties, their eyes had been opened to the
juggle, and they could not stand if any longer. Ile
repeated, they were not wasting the public time, but en-
deavotirirk -to
,guard -theii-couitu and their. religion
fora tlWitillittr,at of 'this =penal. Bill.