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

MARCH

it been introduced, would have been rendered nugatory by
that of the Noble Lord. The Legislature exempted the
Scottish Episcopalians from this restraint, and now the Noble
Lord was practically imposing it. He could not accept the
exemption with gratitude. He was acquainted with many
excellent Scotch Episcopalians, but he had no desire that
an exemption by civil privileges and toleration should be
created for one class of men from which others precisely in
the same circumstances were to be excluded.—(Cheers.) But
did that Bill prohibit territorial titles ? They prohibited epis-
copal titles, but not territorial titles. There were others.
who divided the country into districts besides Episcopalians,
and Wesleyans divided it into circuits.—(Cheers and cries of
" Oh, oh !") He knew the meaning of that cry, and would
deal with it in its proper place. Only one thing at a time.—
(Hear, hear.) He was saying that they did not prevent ter-
ritorial titles, because not only were the Wesleyans, but be-
cause in England and Ireland there were bodies called
Presbyters and Synods, having just as much territorial
titles as these bishops of the Pope.—(" No, no," and cheers.)
There were in Scotland persons professing the same religion
as the people of England, and in England persons professing
the Presbyterian religion of Scotland. They divided the
country into districts, assigning, in the first instance, epis-
copal titles to bishoprics, as, for example, the Bishop of
Glasgow, while in England there was the Presbytery of
London, strictly as binding as any in Scotland. If they
made the distinction because in many countries in Europe
bishoprics were connected with the temporal interests, the
Presbytery was, on the same ground, open to the same ob-
jection. He tookl the Bill according to its professions. Its
proposed object was to prevent Romish aggression. The
Secretary for Foreign Affairs regards it as an extension of
the Act of 1829. He protested against such a desecration of
it. The clause of the Act of 1829 went to defend them
against the usurpation of the ultra existing sees, well known
in the House, and carrying with them many most important
incidents.—( Hear, hear.) The person who should assume
the title of the Bishop of London would be a pretender to a
title endowed with great advantages and temporal rights.
The question now arose whether they would allow a title to
be assumed, which interfered with no one and invaded no
rights, and represent it as an extension of the Act of 1829.
It was for them to prove that the rescript of the Pope was
of the temporal character they described it to be, but he
had heard nothing which proved that to be the case. Of the
parties who defended this Bill, or rather the opinion that
there ought to be legislation on the subject—some said the
Bill went too far, while others said it did not go far enough.
These parties were involved in an inconsistency in defend-
ing this position, when they described what took place in
foreign countries, where they said that the people were re-
duced to the lowest stage of degradation from the influence
of the Reman Catholic religion, and at the same time
alleged that they had no intention to prevent the fair
progress of that religion. The argument went too far.
If they had to contend with a spiritual system, they must
meet the strength of a spiritual system with the strength of
another spiritual system, and not by a penal enactment.—
(Hear, hear.) It was argued by the Noble Lord the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, that there was in this case the distinc-
tion that these titles were conferred by a foreign power.
Well, he would inquire how far would this carry them ?
When they had persons, subjects of this country, who ac-
knowledged this spiritual authority, how were they to in-
terfere with them ? He would not deny that there might
be temporal matters under the guise of spiritual affai-s, but
they could not say because they were derived from foreign
authority that they ought to be deprived of them. They
should show that they were not spiritual matters, but
temporal, under the pretence of being spiritual. When
they had arrived at that conclusion, then there would arise
a reason for their interference. No one had as yet said
that the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics should be
restricted. The Attorney-General distinctly maintained
that they were entitled to equal freedom. Then he asked
the question whether this act was spiritual or temporal?
Religious liberty required that Parliament should not step
within the sphere of religion? He did not mean to say
that it had not a right to interfere in the affairs of the Es-
tablished Church, which derived advantages and privileges
from the State; bat the right was so limited with regard to
religious bodies unendowed and unconnected with the State.
What, he would ask, was the amount of the proof adduced
that the rescript of the Pope was of a temporal character?
The only case you test was that set forth by the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, who stated that the appoint-
ment of bishops was not a spiritual but a temporal act.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had said that was the
opinion of Mr. Twiss.
Mr. GLADSTONE, in continuation, said he should like to
know if the Noble Lord adopted that opinion.—(Langhter.)
If the appointment then of bishops was a spiritual act, they
had no right to interfere. If it was a temporal act, why did
they exempt the bishops of the English Church in Scot-
land, and not place the nomination of those bishops
in the Crown. He wished to see how the Government
could extricate themselves from that dilemma. He called
upon them either to strike out that exemption, or to place
the nomination in the hands of the Crown. The Attorney-
General spoke of excommunications, and the deprivation of
benefices. If parties in these matters went beyond the
sphere of spiritual matters, they would have a right to deal
with it. He would ask, however, were the Roman Catholics
the only parties who used excommuications ? They were
.lommon in other religious communities. They were re-
torted to by the Dissenting bodies, and were used by the
Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and in the Free Church.
Arhat he wanted was not proofs of insulting language hay-
ng been used, or that the Roman Catholic religion was
exclusive, but what he wanted was proof of the temporal
&erecter of the rescript, and if that could not be furnished,
here was not a shadow of reason for the principle laid
town for this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Then there was the
:anon law of which so much had been said. He would
ake the canon law of Boniface the Eighth and Honorius
he Ninth. The Attorney-General disclaimed the opinion
*at this Bill would exclude synodal action. He would call
Don Hon. Gentleman who were prepared to vote in favour
o' this Bill because it would prevent synodal action, to re-
ollect when they went home that this Bill would not ex-
cude the canon law. However this law might increase the
tower of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, that
vas their affair - (Hear, hear)—and there would be no reli-
gious freedom if Parliament undertook to interfere, and re-
slate the internal disputes of religious bodies. Religious
freedom consisted in the right of parties to frame a system
kr themselves, from Mormonism upwards ; and if, when
parties in these bodies found themselves rubbed and fretted,
;hey were to come to Parliament to set them right, their re-
igious freedom would be endangered.—(Cries of " Hear,
lean") The Roman Catholics were free men, and would act
for themselves.—(Hea-.)They did not want y our protection.
They repudiated it. What they wanted was, that you should
b; them alone.—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) He
right ask, what had the Roman Catholics now ? They had
that which was considered the very worst part of this canon
tiw. That which gives too much power to the Pope, and
then not infuse enough of the constitutional principle into the
Church. The system was susceptible of the constitutional
pinciple. In a hierarchy bishops had privileges as against
tie authority of the Pope. The Pope would not deprive a
docesan bishop without that, and an incumbent was in the
slime position with regard to his bishop ; whereas at present
tie Pope was, with regard to the Catholics of this country,
complete master without any limit.—(Hear, hear.) Every
nan was now subject to his arbitrary authority and unli-
mited power, presenting a power as completely arbitrary
Es could exist.—(Hear, hear.) He could remove a bishop
or priest at his will. This arbitrary power could
lot be better expressed than in the words of the
Canon of Boniface VIII. and Honorius IX., which the Hon.
end Learned Gentleman referred to, and which declared—
' That it is necessary for salvation to believe that
everybody is bound to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Vherever bishops were introduced, it must tend alike to
final rights and to equal organisation, and give a certain
cegree of freedom even as against the Pope.—(Hear.) He
confessed it wounded him, as a member of the Church of
England, to see this hierarchy spreading over the country,
hit that was a totally different matter from invoking the
secular arm —(Hear.) He might be wrong, but he supposed
that if proper investigation were made, it would be found
that the law was, that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction should
be vested in the Crown. If that were so, no exception could
be made in favour of particular sects. The Toleration Act
might be an exception, but he apprehended that that would
authorise the exercise of no such power, for instance, as
that used by the Wesleyan Conference, when they deter-
mined upon the expulsion of Mr. Dunn and Mr. Griffiths.
In 1725 Bishop Gibson wrote a letter to the Duke of New-
castle, then Secretary of State, representing that certain
ministers of Massachusetts had intimated to the Governor
of that colony their intention to meet in synod. The
Duke of Newcastle referred the letter to Lord Hard-
wick, who was Attorney-General. The law officers
of the Crown gave it as their opinion that her
Majesty's supremacy extended to the colonies, and that it
was not lawful for the clergy to meet without the Royal
licence. That showed that this power to prevent the meet-
ing of synods extended to all sects, and even to the colonies,
and these law officers, to avoid even the appearance of ad-
mitting the legality of the proposed synod, suggested that,
if the ministers assembled, they should be dispersed by force.
No Act of Parliament had been passed since to the present
day giving express legality to synods. If that were so, and
if this doctrine was now to be applied to the Roman Catho-
lics, it must be applied to all other bodies, and not to them
alone. They must not have a partial and exceptional appli-
cation. He agreed with the Noble Lord that of late the ex-
treme party in the Church of Rome had gained the ascen-
dancy. The moderate party had been declining. He agreed
with the Noble Lord upon these facts, and joined with him
in sentiments of deep regret at this state of things.
They thought that in opposing the introduction of a hierarchy
they Were endeavouring to repress Ultramontane principles.
He would show them the very reverse was the fact. His
assertion was that since the Reformation there had been two
parties in the Roman Catholic Church, and their history was
very different. Since the time of Queen Elizabeth the bulk
of the clergy and laity had pursued one line of policy, and
the Jesuits and the Court of Rome another. The former
party, which might be called the moderate party, had ever
been struggling for this measure of diocesan episcopacy. The
extreme party in the Church of Rome, who were represented
by the cardinals around the Pope and the Jesuits, had all
along been struggling to resist this measure, and now he
asked them to grapple with the facts he should
give them. He would show them that since the
time of Elizabeth the majority of the laity and clergy of the
church of Rome had been straggling, and often with the
countenance of the Government, to obtain diocesan episco-
pacy; and could anything be more gross than for the Go-
vernment now to interfere, and say we will introduce what

will prevent you, the moderate party in the Church of Rome,
from succeeding? Reference had been made to Mr. Palmer,
and that theologian had twitted the. Catholic theologians in
the discussion, by telling them, " You are no Church at all,
because you have no diocesan bishops." When they wish
now to have bishops, and become a regularly constituted
Church, our own theologians and others seek to prevent it.
The Roman Catholic laity and clergy had all along been
struggling to obtain this measure with the sanction and
countenance of the British Government, who had throughout
opposed vicars apostolic, and encouraged the efforts to obtain
diocesan episcopacy. This could be proved upon the autho-
rity of Mr. Dodd, and the well-known Mr. Butler, and
the equally well-known Roman Catholic writer, Perrington.
Directly the penal laws were repealed, the question of
bishops was again sought to be raised, and efforts made to
conciliate the mind of the British Government. The great
mind of Pitt had a definite opinion upon this subject, and
they should not be ashamed of marching under his banner.
He was of an opposite opinion to the Noble Lord.—(Hear.)
When he looked back to the prophetic sayings of that great
man, he found in them lessons of wisdom, which would, if
considered, help them to solve many of the difficult questions
now pressing upon them. After referring to the opinions of
Mr. Pitt on the subject of the Catholic disabilities, he stated
that in 1790 it was deemed advisable by the Catholics to
send Mr. Hussey al ii deputation to Rome, and one of the
great objects Mr. Hussey had in view was to endeavour to
pave the way for the appointment of bishops in ordinary,
elected by the clergy—(Hear, hear) —and he advocated that
appointment on two grounds ; first, that the Government ap.
proved of the change, and second, that the Legislature
would soon' require that change to be made. The same
thing happened when Sir John Con Hippesley was at Rome
—he endeavoured to facilitate the arrangement that vicars-
apostolic should be withdrawn, and that diocesan bishops
should be appointed in their stead. It might be said that if
the bishops were appointed by the clergy the case would be
greatly altered. He (Mr. Gladstone) would wish that; and
the appointment of diocesan bishops was a step to it, and to

26, 1851.

a certain extent would detach them from Rome. They
found, therefore, that the history of the case was this, that
the moderate party in the Church was always asking for
diocesan bishops, that the extreme party always supported
the system of vicars-apostolic, and that the Government
sided with the moderate party. It was his (Mr. Gladstone's
opinion that the course Ministers were taking, so far from
stopping the course of affairs, was calculated to do the very
reverse—that it was throwing them back, and a move in the
direction of penal laws. It was both a persecution and a nul-
lity. If they wished to exercise a beneficial influence on the
Roman Catholics they must reverse their policy. They
must deal with them kindly. They had feelings and affec-
tions they could turn to account, for they were distinguished
by their attachment to their country, and their attachment
to the Crows.—(Hear, hear.) If they drove them back on
the Pope, what could they expect but alienated feelings, and
the difficulties oa the other side of the Channel would be
proportionately increased. In that country their difficulties
had already commenced. When the colleges were opened
last year, they had a party in the Catholic Church in favour
of the colleges, and there was a division in that Church on
the question. But there was no division now.—(Hear, hear,
and cheers.) The question with them now was, should
they go backwards or forwards ?—(Hear, hear.) He con-
tended that there had been no temporal interference
by the Pope in the late appointments, except such as were
incidental to the office of bishop. Would they, then, go
backwards, or forwards, in religious liberty ? Did they think
so ill of their own religion as to fear the breath of free com-
petition?—(Hear, hear.) It was useless to urge that the
present measure was but a trifling retrogression. Of course
it was but a trifling retrogression; but all retrogressions
were so at first. But what security had they that other and
more formidable measures were not in the back ground—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear") —and that during the next
half century the question of religious liberty would not again
act upon Parliament, and be made the means of unseating
Ministers P—( Hear, hear.) Do not tell him that the cha-
racter of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was a security.
He once thought it was—(Hear, hear) —but if they prophe-
sied that the Noble Lord would not prohibit the action
of synods, he feared they wall be in error. If in 1815
any one had told him that in the month of March, 1851,
the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill to prohibit ecclesias-
tical titles on the part of Roman Catholic bishops, he
(Mr. Gladstone) would not have believed it.
He never heard a more impresssive passage than one which
was delivered by the Noble Lord in his speech upon the
second reading of the Bill for enlarging the endowment of
the college of Maynooth, when the Noble Lord referred to
some lines of Virgil—
" Scilicet et tempus veniet, cum finibus illis
Agricola. incurvo terram molitus aratro,
Exesa inveniet sealant' rnbigine pile;
Aut gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit manes,
Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris."
The Noble Lord said, that upon the scenes where battles had
been fought the hand of nature effaced the ruin which the
hand of man had wrought; and the cultivator of the soil in
aftertimes found the rusted arms, and looked upon them
with joy as the memorials of forgotten strife, and as enhanc-
ing the blessings of his peaceful occupation ; but he added,
in reference to the powerful opposition to that measure, that
it seemed that our strifes upon the question of religious free-
dom never were at an end, and our arms never were to rust.
—(Hear, hear.) Would any man who heard the Noble Lord
deliver those impressive sentences have believed, not only
that strife in regard to the great question of religious liberty
was to be revived—revived, it was to be feared, with a great
deal of acerbity—in this year 1851—(Hear, hear)—but that
he himself was to be a main agent in the revival—( dear,
hear) - that his was to be the head which was to wear the
helmet, and his the hand which was to grasp the spear?--
(Hear, hear.) The principle of religious freedom—its adapta-
tion to their modern state and to their ancient institutions,
was not adopted rashly. Were they going to spend the
latter part of the century in undoing that which they had
already done? It must be recollected that Europe, and the
civilized world, looked to England at the present moment.
They knew that nothing was so distasteful to England as
obsolete theories, and that when she made a step forward,
she kept it—that she was not a republic to-day, and a mo-
narchy to-morrow. If the people of England, then, at-
tempted to turn back the principle of civil and religious
liberty it would recoil upon themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord had appealed to those on his (Mr. Glad-
stone's) side of the House in the names of Hampden and
of Pym ; but he confessed he would rather have heard those
names appealed to on any other subject—(Hear, hear)—
because if there was one blot on their scutcheons, it was the
odious intolerance which they practised against the Catholics.
(Hear, hear.) He would rather prefer appealing to those
great men who were mentioned by Hallam, to whom they
owed the safety of this great monarchy, and whose disposi-
tion was to avert the severity of the laws and to attach to
them their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Alluding
to the party with which he was connected the Right Hon.
' Gentleman said, there was no great band of union which
bound them together; but that they' felt they should, one
day, have the force of public opinion.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Re entreated the House to consider well the conclusion to
which they were about to come on this important question,
and trusted that their votes would be given in accordance
with the sacred principles of justice, and that while they
were sustained by a sense of justice, they would resolve to
follow wherever it might lead. The Right Hon. Gentleman
resumed his seat amid loud cheering, which continued for
several minutes.

Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I think I gave testimony last night,
by voting against the adjournment of the debate, that I did
not wish to intrude on the House in this debate. I hope,
however, that as few of those with whom I usually act have
addressed the House on this subject, trusting perhaps to my
feeble expression of their views—that I may have the oppor-
tunity of expressing with extreme brevity our views of the
general question which has been mooted, and particularly of
the measure offered to our consideration. Sir, we have been
informed by a Minister of the Crown that an aggression has
been committed against the supremacy of the Sovereign and
the honour of the nation. By the same means that this in-
formation was conveyed to us, we were informed that the
aggression was committed by a prince of no great power.
&flowing up that intimation, the Hon. and Learned Member
for Sheffield has talked of that power as a poor feeble priest ;
and more than one Hon. Gentleman has taken several op-

portunities of reminding us that the present possessor of the
Papal see was surrounded by French bayonets—a fact which
has been reiterated as a reason for our countenancing the
aggression which the Government has confessed has taken
place. Now, Sir, I would remind the House that more than
three centuries ago the Pope was not only supported—if I
may use the expression—by French bayonets, but that Rome
was taken and sacked by a French prince, and that the Pope
of those days suffered indignities greater than Pius IX. has
ever been subjected to. Yet, since that period, the greatest
achievements of the Papal see have occurred ; and since that
period, and notwithstanding the strong will of Henry VIII.
•and the pure spirit of Edward VI., the Protestant Establish-
ment in England was subverted ; and it is only because the
attempt of Phillip and Mary was not successful that lam
not at this moment perhaps addressing a Popish Speaker
and a Popish Parliament.—(Hear.) Now, Sir, whatever
may be our opinions of this aggression, it is not true—it is
not wise to despise the foe who committed it.— (Hear, hear.)
1 deny, Sir, that this prince is a prince of no great power.
I say he is a prince of very great power—if not of the
greatest. I will not dwell on those millions of his sub-
jects of whose existence we have been so often reminded by
speakers on both sides, but I will remind the House that, in-
dependent of that circumstance the Pope has at his com-
mand, between the regular and secular clergy, an army of
1,000,000 of priests, governed by thousands of bishops and
archbishops, and that he was the general and lieutenant
general of this great host.—(Hear.) And is this, Sir, the
power that we are told is to be treated in the same way
as we treat the Wesleyan Conference.—(Cheers.) Is this a
power to be associated with the last invention of Scotch '
Dissenters ?—(Hear, hear.) When I listened, Sir, to the
ingenious reasonings with which this fallacy was supported,
and to the fallacious analogies of the Right lion. Gentle-
man, I for a moment supposed th were only a display of
dialectics to adorn the debate.—(Hear, hear.) But when
I remember the high position of those who have indulged in
them, I could not help suspecting that there was a concealed
object, and that their comparisons were more pregnant with
meaning than they seemed to be.— (Hear.) And, indeed,
Sir, it has scarcely been concealed by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman who has just sat down, for he says, "If you
apply this doctrine to the Queen's supremacy, and to those
adhering to the Roman Catholic communion, on what plea
can you refuse to apply it to Wesleyans, or to Scotch Dis-
senters? " But, Sir, the converse of the proposition is
equally true, and if that interpretation of religious liberty
supported by the Right Honourable Gentleman and the
Honourable and Learned Member for Plymouth is to be ac-
cepted and applied to the Church of Rome, on what plea
can you refuse to apply the same principle of religious
liberty not only to the Church of Rome, but to the Church
of England?—(Cheers.) On what ground can you vindi-
cate a restriction of the principle which you support, so far
as the Church of England is concerned? Is she not to have
the command of her internal discipline and internal arrange-
ments? Why is she not to have a synod of action?—
(Cheers.) Why is the Church of England alone to acknow-
ledge the supremacy of the Queen?—(Hear, hear.) Why,
Sir, we see the trouble involved in the principle assumed.—
(Hear, hear.) The only inference you can draw from the
new philosophy of the Right honourable Gentleman and his
friends is, that they are opposed to the alliance between
Church and State.—(Loud cheers.) I believe the House
of Commons are not yet prepared to support that prin-
ciple.—(Renewed cheers.) Sir, I cannot deal with this ag-
gression of the Pope on the abstract principles which have
been introduced into the discussion. I must look to the cir-
cumstances which surround us. On one side it is acknow-
ledged that there has been a great revival of Romanism in
Europe. No one denies that. But, on the other hand, it is
said that there has been a great revival of Protestantism in
England. What will be the issue of the struggle which the
Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Ripon seemed to think inevitable in Europe, I
will not take upon me to say. The circumstances are so
complicated and the catastrophe so awful, that we shrink
from attempting to form an opinion of so terrible a contin-
gency. What may be the issue in our own country is unfor-
tunately a subject on which every man is much mole quali-
fied to form a judgment. I confess the possible result is one
which makes me shudder, and I think Government would
only be doing its duty, ifj a contest between R.om.anism end
Protestantism was inevitable in this country, if it pr.opose
measures and advised a line of conduct to prevent
nu 'w
npchie s
fe
and to counteract such evils.—(Hesi.) .t
c w
aingeunird,ome
for
such
whether the measure proposed 'ls adequate
and whether, if the circumstances detailed be authentic, it
is calculated' to prevent the mischief contemplated. I re-
member I ventured, on the introduction of the measure, to
say that it was not equal to the proems of the
Noble Lord—that it asserted no _principle and vin-
dicated no right. After the lapse of some few hours we
bad another version of
which the measure by the chief law
officer of the Crown, gave it a m i
character. The Attorney-General informed us that the
measure would not only deal with titles illegitimately
' assumed, but with bequests and endowments to persons
assuming these titles; and he reminded us, in a tone of
self-complacency, that synodical action would be dealt
with. What, then, was the Act? The whole projects of
the Attorney-General was suddenly withdrawn, and we
were told that we were only to discuss a Bill containing
one clause, and when the Secretary of State made this
announcement on the part of Ministers, he scarcely con-
cealed their opinion that it would be inoperative in Ire-
land and might be evaded in England ; but that it was
necessary to pass it as a demonstrati,n and as a protest.—
(Hear, hear.) I ask, Sir, what could be a better vin-
dication of the course proposed by Lord Stanley
than this proceeding of the Ministry? (Hear, hear.) If
the best course was to protest in the face of Europe, would
not a resolution of the two Houses have been of more avail,
not only for that purpose, but also to sustain the spirit of
England, than the project of a law, which in the course of
six weeks has undergone countless transformations, and
which has been announced by its projectors as ineffective, and
the effect of which is even, perhaps, more than doubtful ? I
want to place before the House the reasons for my disap-
proval of the measure. My first objection is, that by im-
plication it confesses that the conduct of Cardinal Wiseman,
of which you complain, was not illegal. It must have been
either one or the other. If it were legal, it was not an
offence—if it were illegal, why then did you not deal with it
by the law ? But he was told that the law was obsolete.

The circumstances, Sir, in the present case were fres)
fl igrant. The law which could have dealt with it wi

(.....,, (_...".,7,,-...--....'
,;

obsolete, but ancient.—(Hear, hear.) And it is taifolut
against the liberties of England to contend that all ancie -
laws are obsolete, because our liberties depended upon Buell.
—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) The second reason for my
objection to this Bill is, that it attempts to legislate upon
phrases and not facts. It attempts to legislate upon tithes.
Now this is clear, that if you press the law, no person
who could be subjected to it will ever place himself
in a position as an offender under it. Yet he will not
the less use the titles and those incidents which are conse-
quent upon his office. The whole thing is founded on a
fallacy. If you choose to legislate on titles, you should not
legislate against the assumption of titles by the bishops of
the Roman Catholic Church, but against those titles of
honour and dignity which have been conferred upon them
by her Majesty's Ministers.—(Cheers.) What a mockery it
is when the Ministers are caressing and lauding these bishops,
to be proposing penal statutes, because those bishops are
treated with respect and honour by one class of her Majety's
subjects.— (Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary for the Home Department had told them that these
bishops were so addressed by the Government .on the ground
of social courtesy. Nothing was more inane than to legis-
late against those titles assumed by the Roman Catholic
bishops, and not against those titles of honour conferred on
them by the Government.—(Cheers.) I repeat that the Bill
asserted no principle. That cannot be questioned. It would
be assuredly a principle if it laid this down, that no person
should accept place or dignity, employment or office,
civil or ecclesiastical, from any foreign prince, except
with the consent of her Majesty. That might be a
national enactment and have taken the form of a statesman-
like precaution, instead of the present measure which had
only the appearance of a spiteful act of the Government of
this country against Popery. It may be said that the con-
sent of the Crown would be equivalent to a veto. That I
deny. I will not now stop to argue upon the propriety or
otherwise of the veto; but I deny that such a measure as I
suggested would amount to a veto. The Roman Catholic
bishop, as a matter of course, receives his appointment upon
doing that which every gentleman elected in the constitu-
tional way to represent a constituency in this house is bound
to do— namely, to take the oaths that are proposed
to him upon his appointment to such an office.
I feel the utter impossibility at this hour of the night to
enter fully into this discussion. I feel also that I have great
difficulties to contend against in attempting to criticise the
measure before us. The relations that subsist between me
and the Noble Lord are not those which are favourable to
a candid criticism.— (Hear.) If the Noble Lord were my
Noble Friend—(Loud cheers)—if there subsisted between us
relations of friendship—even of affection—(Cheers and laugh..
ter)—l would avail myself of the proud privilege of such mu-
tual sensibility, and rest assured I would take care neither to
spare his policy or his feelings.— (Renewed laughter.) And
this reminds me that while attempting to prove that this mea-
sure is inefficient, although I shall vote for the second reading
of it upon the same grounds as were stated by my Hon and
L3amed Friend near me (Sir F. Theaiger), though not in
any way pledging myself ultimately to support the Bill—
though I think it will be evaded in England and inoperative
in Ireland —yet that it had been supported and opposed by
authorities of the greatest importance and commented upon
in language of a most varied character. I heard it stated
by one party that this Bill would be opposed because it was
a reversial of our policy. Sir, I have heard these phrases
before.—(Cheers.) I remember, about two years ago,
making a very moderate proposition to mitigate the burden
of taxation upon a suffering class of her Majesty's subjects,
and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.
Graham) then my opponent, as he is now the opponent of
the Government, did oppose the proposition, because he said
it was the reversal of our policy.—(Hear, hear.) But on
that occasion the pretext appeared to be so monstrous that
it was not swallowed by the Right Hon Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford (Mr:Gladstone). But
on the present occasion," the reversal of our policy" is likely
to bear some serious consequences. These consequences, we
are told by the Right Hon. the Member for Ripon, are to
be inevitable and immediate if this Bill passes
into a law—namely, a civil war in Ireland. Now I heard
that announcement with some misapprehension, but with
more surprise.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gen-
tleman reminded us of the state of Ireland in 1829, and he
said that we escaped civil war then by yielding to her de-
mands, but you will not escape it even if you persist in this
measure. He made an analogy between the state of Ireland
in 1829 and 1851, and according to him that analogy was
complete. I ask him now whether that analogy was just,
and whether it was complete and proved? If so, what, then,
is the result of all those great measures we have passed for
the amelioration of Ireland during the last twenty years?...
(Hear, hear.) If the state of Ireland be in the same posi-
tion now as it was in 1829. What, I sa_y, was the use of
giving complete political equality to the Roman Catholics in
Ireland; of reconstructing the Church Establishment there;
of abolishing tithes, and of establishing the great system of
national education founded by Lord Stanley ?—(Hear,
hear.) What, I say then, was the use of granting them
municipal reform, by which the corporation was
opened to all creeds, and upon the lowest franchise, not-
withstanding the ( pposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman
himself?—(Cheers.) What was the use of the hew colleges—
of giving to the Roman Catholics a university munificently
endowed? What was the use of your doing for Ireland that
which you had not done for England, namely, of having
revised and increased the franchise in Ireland; if it be true
that Ireland in 1851 is in the same state it was in 1829,
namely, on the verge of rebellion ?—(Cheers.) Sir, I have
too much faith not only in the loyalty, but the common sense
of the Irish people, to believe that this is the case.— (Hear.)
If that were true which had fallen from the lips of the Right
non. Baronet the Member for Ripon, why, I ask, are those
the lips through which such an intimation is circulated?--
(Cheers.) I make these observations because the Right
Hon. Gentleman is no inconsiderable person. He is one of
" the foremost men of all this world," and according to the
not very delicate intimation of his friends, he is even likely
soon to occupy a still more responsible situation than he at
present fills.— (Hear, hear.) He wears the white robe,
and stands in the forum a candidate for the consulate.—

(Cheers.) It will be well for the people to pause over the
observations he has made, for they have been both strange
and singular in the course of this session.—(Hear, hear.) I
proposed one day a revision of the taxation in respect to
the suffering farmer, and the Right Hon. Baronet threatens
me with a mutiny in the army.—(Cheers.) Some elections
took place not exactly favourable to the views he enunci-
ated, and he threatens us with Parliamentary reform.—
(Laughter.) A measure is brought forward to resist what is
styled a foreign aggression, hostile to the honour of the na-
tion and the supremacy of the Sovereign, and he says that
there will be a rebellion in Ireland.—(Renewed laughter.)
Now, I hear in the course of eight weeks three remarkable
assertions, which are well worthy the consideration of those
who are uncertain in mind and are likely to alarm those who
are peaceably disposed. Let us consider, then, whether the
Right Hon. Gentleman is likely to become the pilot that will
weather the storm. There was one great measure brought
forward for Ireland in the course of the last twenty years,
which was not successful, and that was the only one that
was proposed by the Minister which did not succeed. It was
one that would:have despoiled the Protestant Establishment
of part of its revenues in order to partially endow the Roman
Catholic Church in Ireland. That measure was brought
forward by the Noble Lord, but it was defeated by the oppo-
sition of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. This
shows how little acquainted, after all, we are with all that
takes place about us, and how difficult it is for us to form an
accurate conception of contemporary events, even of those in
which we ourselves have mingled, when it is reserved for
this debate for the House of Commons and the country to
be informed what the motives were which induced the Right
Hon. Gentleman to take the course which he then pursued,
It appeared that the opposition given to the appropriation
clause upon his part was solely influenced by an abstract ob-
jection to endowments.—(Hear, hear.) I wonder if that was
the motive which animated Lord Stanley, who was then the
companion of the Right Hon. Baronet, for they both stood
together on their chivalry. But it is certain that neither
this House nor the country was in the secret, or did really
believe that the opposition of the Right Hon. Baronet to the
appropriation clause was founded upon an abstract objection
to endowments. If I had heard it from any other person I
should imagine this objection to come from a titular arch-
bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, from the cardinal, or
the general of the Jesuits. Was it for this that the Cabinet
of Lord Grey was subverted? Was it for this that the Right
Honourable Gentleman had enlisted himself under that Con-
servative banner which he has so faithfully served?—
(Ironical cheers.) Sir, I don't believe there is the
slightest chance or fear of civil war in Ireland.
1 agree with the Right Honourable Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) that the principle of civil
liberty is too deeply impressed on the minds of the people of
this age that they could be stimulated to the commission of
any such unhappy outrages. It is utterly impossible that
Ireland could be governed on the principles of the Protes-
tant ascendancy ; but equally certain is it that no Govern-
ment can exist that is not faithfully devoted to the Protes-
tant Constitution of this country.—( Great cheering.) In its
maintenance are involved greater interests than the fate of a
Government—namely, the fate of the crown and the elestiny
of the empire; and, trust me, not the least important interest
involved In it is that of the civil and religious liberties sf the
Roman Catholics themselves.—(Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY said it was impossible not to be struck with
the fact, that amongst the most able of the opponents to
this Bill—men of great talent, ingenuity, and sophistry—in
pointing out objections to the course the Government were
pursuing, and in detailing their difficulties and embarreese
ments, there was a remarkable absence of any ens fixed
or definite principle upon which their objections to the Go..
Roman Catholic
House, for whom he entertained the
Members of that
ment measure rested. It was asserted by the Ro
most sincere respect, 'that the Bill embodied the
principle of persecution, and was opposed to religious
for
freedom. He challenged any one to adduce the
proofs in support of such. an assertion. lie eed
with the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member
the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) in the principle
which he had laid deign as the only one that should guide
us in dealing with it—namely, that it should be framed upon
the ground of imperial policy. So far as the spiritual pro-
gress of the Roman Catholic faith and spiritual means were
concerned, we should be departing from the principles which
guided as if we in any degree fettered by law the
friends would have a clear right to compain'
that religion ; and he admitted that his Roftan
wpwerohvgriicohelssatidef
Catholic
othurosefepilroiwne-ispulbesjecoftseqtuhaelitpyminaenedxtfernetedoofm,freedolodiffmd net allow
claimeed for ourselves. (a
—n this subject he could only say
he did not regret the act of the Pope, because it had the
effect of invoking the strong attachment of the people
of this country to the Protestant Church, , and of drawing
together in one bond of union the members of the
different Protestant communions,
not for the purpose of
forcing on the Legislature any undue restrictions, but for the
purpose of repelling what they considered to be an aggres-
sion upon their rights and liberties. He deeply regretted
that
anything ot a polemical character should enter
into these debates. There were two points to be here
considered. The first was, whether there had been such
an aggression on the sovereignty of the Queen and the in-
dependence of the nation, as called upon Parliament to inter-
fere, and next whether if this be answered in the affirma-
tive, this was a measure which Parliament, under the cir-
cumstances, ought to adopt? The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Plymouth in his very able speech had defended the
act of the Pope, as based on the principle of religious free-
dom; and had denied that it was opposed to the law of na-
tions. He had said it was only in that manner that the or-
ganisation which the Roman Catholics had a right to use,
could be carried out ; and the conclusion to which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had come to was, that Parliament
had nothing to do with that attempt. The Hon. Gentleman
who had followed him in the debate, however, had enter-
tained a stronger sense of the aggression, and his quarrel
with the Government was, that it proposed to do too little, and
not too much in the matter. Another Honourable Member
had considered that some legislation was necessary, but that
it ought not to be directed against the subjects of her Ma-
jesty, but against the Pope himself. Now he (Sir George
Grey) could not see how legislation could take place in re-
spect of that question, without affecting the subjects of her
Majesty. The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Sidney Herbert) had said that the act of the Pope etas
defensible, and had asked how the civil or political state 'of
this country was affected by It? 'And he had gehie en `Oen
to claim credit for the rope for appointing bishops instead

s t N
i-. D 1
..
4 i :"--.,rt\

1-*".4:--)

ti Atr.P6l