The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-11 00:00:00

eloquent speech, having first proved the necessity
for the introduction of some measure to repel the Papal
aggression, proceeded to explain the provisions of the
proposed Bill. The Bill would extend those provisions
of the Act of 1829 which imposed a penalty of
1001. upon the assumption of the title of
any existing see to that of say title whatever,
from any place in the United Kingdom; the Bill also
made every act done in virtue of such titles by persons
assuming them absolutely void, and declared all endow-
ments of such pretended sees illegal, and such gifts and
endowments forfeited to the Crown. The Bill would be
found to effectually remedy the evil it was intended to
meet, whilst, at the same time, it did not extend to any
case which the existing law was competent to reach, or
to anything which, being of a purely spiritual charac-
ter, could not be dealt with by legislation.
Lord ASHLEY supported the measure as one absolutely
required to prevent the ecclesiastics of the Romish Church
from occupying a position and exercising an authority
which they had never previously been permitted to
occupy or to exercise in this or in any other country,
not even in those countries in which the Roman Catholic
religion was established. The Noble Lord contended
that this aggression had been encouraged and invited
by certain Romanizing clergy in our own Church, whu
claimed to exercise a tyrannical power over the laity,
and declared his belief that if the Puseyite clergy con-
tinued such practices a collision must eventually take
place between them and the laity. The Noble Lord ex-
pressed a hope that some measure would be adopted to
purify the Church.

Mr. GRATTAN opposed and Mr. CONOLLY supported
the motion.

Mr. PAGE WOOD eulogised the late national move-
ment for repelling the Papal aggression as an indication
of religious earnestness without any feeling of bigotry.
Nowhere had any desire been expressed for a return to
the penal laws. He contended that this was not a mere
dispute about names ; for bishops possessed powers,
such as that of holding synods and of introducing the
canon law, which vicars-apostolic did not. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman then made several quotations
from the canon law for the purpose of showing that that
law placed the laws of the State in subordination to the
laws of the Roman Catholic Church, and that thus it
placed the Roman Catholics in the dilemma of a
divided allegiance. He likewise contended that Car-
dinal WiszmAN and the other newly-appointed Roman
Catholic bishops had violated the Acts of the 16th
RICHARD 11., and of the 13th ELIZABETH, and con-
cluded by denouncing that portion of the Church of
England clergy who continued to receive the emolu-
ments of a Protestant Church whilst they were Romanists
at heart.

Mr. M'CuLtscs defended Dr. CULLEN and the Synod
of Tharles from the attack of Lord JOHN RUSSELL.

Sir GEORGE GREY said the measure was of a purely
defensive character, and had been introduced in obedience
to the demand of the nation to repress an aggressive
act of an illegal character, which invaded the QUEEN'S
prerogative and ignored the existence of every religious
denomination in the country, except the Roman Catho•
lies, thus claiming for the POPE universal dominion. He de-
fended Lord CLARENDON from the attacks which had been
made on him, and denied that he had ever, as represented
by Mr. DISRAELI in his letter, addressed the Roman Catho-
lic prelates of Ireland by titles prohibited by law, remind.
ing Mr. DISRAELI that it but ill became him, who had
committed so many blunders in his own letter, to indulge
in captious criticism on the letters of others. Sir GEORGE
repeated the denial of Lord MINTO, that any communi-
cation had been made to him on the subject of the estab-
lishment of a Romish hierarchy in this country, and con-
cluded by vindicating the late national manifestation
from the charge of bigotry, which had been brought
against it.

On the motion of Mr. P. HOWARD, the debate wag,
after some opposition, adjourned to Wednesday.
Mr. ANSTEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
the repeal of enactments imposing certain pains, pe-
nalties, and disabilities on her MAJESTY'S Roman Ca-
tholic subjects, which, upon a division, was refused by
175 against 35.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.