The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-16 00:00:00

NING-, MAY 16, 1851.

if Mr. Winter, one of the principal clerks in the Chief
Secretary's-office in Dublin, was about to retire; if
such retirement was caused by anything which ap-
peared in the recent report of the Commissioners who
tried the case of Duncan Chisholm (alias George
Mathews), late clerk in the same office ; if Government
were about to give Mr. Winter a pension for his past
services ; if any information had been yet received of
the arrest of the said Duncan Chisholm ; the date of
the instructions to the police authorities for same, and
the steps since taken to carry them out ?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said the retirement of Mr.
Winter was entirely voluntary. He had been a public
servant for nearly 40 years, and after that length of ser-
vice he had expressed a wish to retire. He had always
been a very efficient and able officer. He did not
know what arrangement bad been made with respect
to his retiring pension. As to the other question,
he did not think it advisable at present to state what
steps had been taken by the Government for the arrest
of Duncan Chisholm, as ho was yet at large, and such
information might defeat the ends of justice.
SUPPRESSION OF SLAVE TRADE AT BRAZIL.
Sir J. PAKINGTO7..i asked the Secretary of State
for the Home Department whether he intended to make
any communication to the House, or to lay any papers
on the table, in explanation of that paragraph in her
Majesty's Speech at the opening of the session, in which
she stated that " the Government of Brazil has taken
new, and, I hope, efficient measures for the suppression
of the atrocious traffic in slaves ?"
Lord J. RUSSELL said his Noble Friend (Lord
Palmerston) would, no doubt. if he were in the House,
give an answer to the Hon. Gentleman's question; but
he was happy to say that the accounts which had been
received gave fresh confirmation of the statement as to
the extinction of the slave trade at Brazil.
MR. FIUME'S MOTION.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE apologised for his absence in
the House at four o'clock on Tuesday, saying he thought
he should have been in plenty of time at half-past four,
and gave notice that, as Mr. Hume had fixed his motion
for the 3d of June, he should on that day move an
amendment to it, to the effect that the House would at
the earliest opportunity next session take into its serious
consideration the representation of the people with a
view to the extension of the elective franchise.
WINDOW TAX.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then asked the Noble Lord
when it was his intention to proceed with the second
reading of the Window Duties Bill? He understood
that there was no opposition to be offered to the second
reading. It was hoped that the measure would have
been proceeded with before the income•tax.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member for
Finsbury must be aware that there had been certain
notices of motion given for the remission of taxes. It
was, therefore, a matter of consideration with the Go-
vernment whether they woull press forward the Win-
dow Duty Bill before such notices had been disposed of.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Noble Lord whether
there was not a distinct understanding that the window-
tax was to be repealed?
Lord J. RUSSELL had stated distinctly a week or
ten days ago that the Government were most
i anxious to
proceed with the Window Tax Bill ; but that theft: n-
tentions respecting it must depend upon the decision
of the House in reference to other matters.
BOARD OF HEALTH.
Mr. HUTCHINS asked the Noble Lord the Member
for Bath (Lord Ashley) whether it was the custom of
the Board of Health to appoint as their engineers those
gentlemen who go into the country for the purpose of
reporting upon the propriety or otherwise of extending
their operations to particular towns or districts?
Lord ASHLEY said he was not aware that it was
the custom for the Commissioners to do any such thing.
CONFERENCES.
Mr. LABOUCHERE reported that the Lords desired
a conference with that House upon the subject of con-
ferences generally, and appointed the same to take place
immediately.
The following gentlemen were then appointed to con-
duct the conference on the part of the Commons, and
left the House for that purpose:—Sir J. Graham, Mr.
C. Lewis, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Disraeli, the Attorney and
Solicitor-General, Sir J. Young, Mr. Cardwell, Mr.
Herries, Mr. Christopher, Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Haytor,
Colonel Dunne, and Mr. Labouchere.

Upon their return,
Mr. LABOUCHERE informed the House that the
managers on the part of tho Commons had agreed to the
resolutions proposed by the managers on the part of the
Lords, and they had submitted a resolution to the House
of Lords desiring their concurrence to the same, which
resolutions they had left with their Lordships.
A messenger from the Lords soon afterwards ap-
peared at the table to request another conference with
the Commons.

The Hon. Members appointed to conduct same imme-
diately left the House for that purpose,
On ther return,
Mr. LABOUCHERE informed the House that the
House of Lords had agreed to the resolution of the
Commons which was communiolted to their Lordships
that day.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
Mr. KEOGH asked the Hon. Member for Midhurst
(Mr. Walpole) whether the rumour which had prevailed
that some understanding or arrangement existed between
him and the Government with reference to the amend-
ment of which he had given notice respecting the Eccle-
siastical Titles Bill was true, and if so, whether his views
were in consequence likely to be altered?—(Cries of
" Hear," and " No.")
Mr. WALPOLE rose for the purpose of giving a
reply, but in deference to a general cry of" No, no," he
resumed his seat without saying a word.
Mr. REYNOLDS then put a similar question to Lord
John Russell.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the proper time to ask such
a question would be when the House went into a Com-
mittee on the Bill.—(Cheers.)
Mr. REYNOLDS presented petitions from the Ca-
tholic inhabitants of the following places against the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and the Religious Houses
Bill :—Ballymore Eustace; Culfeightine, Antrim; Kir-
lanevin, county of Cavan; Dromcree, Armagh; Dran-
crilly, Leitrim; Donegal, Donegal; Ballinascreen, Lon-
donderry.; Holloywood, Wicklow; Crosserlaugh, Cavan;
All Saints, Donegal ; Angleton, Lancaster ; Lesgon,
Armagh ; Ballyneose, Sligo ; Clonclane, Leitrim;
Geogar and Rathdowny, Queen's County ; Donagh,
Monaghan ; Doorane and Mayo, Queen's County ;
Brecon, Brecknockshire ; Kamcron, Antrim; Blessing-
ton, Wicklow; Navan, Meath; Durcroff, Kildare.
The reading of the prayers of this number of peti-
tions by the Hon. Gentleman occupied nearly twenty
minutes.

Mr. O'FLAHERTY presented several petitions against
the Bill from various parts of Ireland ; as did also Mr.
Greene, Mr. Keogh, Mr. Megan, and Mr. John O'Con-
nell.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Oa the order of the day for the resumption of the ad-
/owned debate on the above Bill,
Mr. SCULLY rose to oppose the motion, upon the
grounds stated in the petitions which had just been pre-
sented to the House, and because ho believed the Bill
of the Government was not founded on fact, and that if
carried into a law it would be dangerous to the moral
and social condition of Ireland. In addition to the other
grounds which had been stated by the Noble Lord as
rendering the Bill necessary, the Noble Lord had taken
this further ground, that the aggression—as ho was
pleased to call the act of the Pope—had arisen from a
desire on the part of " his Holiness" to interfere with
the constitutional liberties, not only of this country, but
of every country in Europe—that, in fact, it was a part
of the revolutionary tactics now in operation on the Con-
tinent, and that it was intended to create a disturbance
between this country and Ireland. Now he (Mr.
Scully) would be sorry to say that the measures of the
Pope had been taken with any such object. He knew
that his policy previously was the very reverse, and
there was proof of it in the Italian states, where he had
adopted quite a contrary course, and had never en-
couraged revolution. He had looked into the reports
made to the Noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs,
and found in them evidence for arriving at a totally dif-
ferent opinion. The Noble Lord (J. Russell) said that
no aggression had been made in foreign countries similar
to that which had been attempted here. But the reports
to which be referred conclusively showed that that could
not be the ground upon which the Noble Lord intro-
duce the Bill. The Hon. Member then quoted extracts
from various papers which he held in his hand, in order
to show that in Austria, that in Prussia, in Greece, and
in Belgium, the Pope did exercise the power of nomi-
nating bishops without the previous intervention of the
state. It had been said that the proposed Bill would do
no more than the Act of 1829 did. But when the Hon.
and Learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) asked
the Noble Lord if it would be enforced, the Noble Lord
evaded the question, and said if the clergy in Ireland
continued to act in future as they had hitherto there
would be no necessity for enforcing it. What did that
mean? Did the Noble Lord mean to say that there had
been no infraction of the Act of 1829 in Ireland? Were
not the creation of the bishopric of Galway and the
severance of the united sees of Cloyne and Ross, with
the creation of a bishop for the latter see, an infrac-
tion of the Act of 1829; and if so, what meant the
Noble Lord's reference to the clergy acting as they had
hitherto done? He believed that the reason the Noble
Lord could not enforce the Act of 1829 was that the
7,000,000 of Roman Catholics in Ireland would not
submit to or endure their bishops being fined
1001.
for every episcopal function which they dis-
charged. The Act of 1829 was violated in other respects.
In a case that came before the law courts in Ireland
some time back, documents were given in evidence
which eree ssigned by Dr. Murray as Archbishop
of Dublin. lie wanted to know, then, since they had
found it impossible to enforce the Act of 1829 in those
respects, whether they meant to enforce the present Bill
if it should become law, and if they did not mean to en-
force it, why should they pass it at all? The Noble Lord
said that the measure of the Pope in creating the En-
glish hierarchy had invaded the prerogative of the
Crown; if that were so, had it not likewise invaded
_et_he
prerogative in the colonies to create bishops there!' t
no Bill of this kind had been suggested for thecoloen dis-
trust
Yes.
The only effect of their measure would beto c reeep
le of
at
and suspicion in the minds of the Irish
all their Acts, which might be well-intended
people.
It but
which would fail of being regarded as such
entertained of the
give consistence to the
It would damage the national system of education and
couldaffecting
ne thet
b spiritual
deniede
tchuartellowpi without
fu Queen'snc t i s eoefl l et
gh
eel;
theita suspicionsinacett
by any person acquaint
priest could be appointed.e twitho his i tshe parochial matter,
of the prelate's proper
as such his appointment beaming. the signature of the bishops of
the dioceses
L pans priers could r. )t
name; but as the insteadThelliprohhibited
parish
e .bishops., assuming
be duly appointed, and the whole Roman Ca-
tholicany tn-ritorial title,
would become
and the parochial clergy would be
parochial system Ireland
dieoreat,Zed,

merely as missionaries in the country. It was then
said that the introduction of a hierarchy into this
country would he aceompanied by the introduction of
the canon law, and that it wits neeessary to protect
Roman Catholics from the tyrannical exercise of the
powers of that law, rs shown, for instance, in ceses of
excommunication. Were Roman Catholic ecclesiastics
the only ones who excommunicated? Why refer to the
excommunications in Sardinia—.the circumstances of
which, by the way, he might observe, hed been greatly
exaggerated? Why go to foreign countries for in-
stances when they hod some nearer home—the excom-
munications which had been referred to as having been
exercised by a Protestant bishop in Scotland? They
need not fear any tyranny at this time of day from the
undue use of the power of excommunication, especially
in this country; fur the parties who should be affected by
excommunications had their remedy in the law of the
land, and a recent case in point had occurred in Ireland,
where a layman who had been excommunicated by his
parish priest brought the matter before a court of law
and obtained damages against the priest. Another rea-
son for opposing the motion was to be found in
the amendments of which notice bad been given,
and which, if carried in Committee, would
tend still more than the Bill in its present form
to drive the people of Ireland to acts of civil vita-
lance. He advised the Ncble Lord at the head of the
Government to withdraw his Bill, and leave the sub-
ject in the hands of those Hon. Members who had put
these notices on the paper. The Noble Lord refused to
tell the House what course ho would take with respect
to the amendments until they got into Committee. But
he told the Noble Lord that it was his duty to declare
his intentions on a matter of so much importance before
the Speaker left the chair. The conduct of Irish Mem-
bers with reference to this Bill had been impugned, hut
what was the course pursued by the Whigs in 1846 with
respect to Sir R. Pool's Coercion Bill? They first sup-
ported it, and then, seeing that a prospect presented itself.
of displacing him from power, they turned round and
violently opposed it. This measure would raise a cry in
Ireland which would never be subdued until coma mea-
sures were introduced really beneficial to that country;
and be believed that a pledge would be exacted from
candidates to oppose all measures oppressive to the Ro-
man Catholics, and to snare no efforts to put an end to
the maintenance of a Church with immense revenues to
minister to the religious wants of a small minority. He
again advised the Government to withdraw this 13111, and
introduce measures of real utility. The Noble Lord was
much mistaken if he supposed that he could suppress the
Catholic feeling of Ireland, which was only beginning
to manifest itself. This Bill was looked on as the in-
troduction of the small end of the wedge, which must
necessarily be the precursor of ulterior measures.
Mr. 'EGG-PROSSER said her Majesty's Roman
Catholic subjects asked for religious freedom, not be-
cause they were Roman Catholics, but because they
were Englishmen. Was it right to contuse the instuoce
of England with the case of other countries which had
never enjoyed the great blessings of religious liberty?
The question was, whether Ireland was or was not to
be included, and it Ives said that to include it would not
fail to stir up a spirit of disaffection in that country.
To this, the reply of the Government was, that it was a
question of the Queen's prerogative, which extended to
both countries. What was the conclusion to be drawn
from these conflicting arguments ? Why, that the
Queen's prerogative was not concerned in the matter,
and that it was a mistake and a fallacy to put it upon
that ground. The best argument was, that it was neces-
sary to prevent the establishment of the canon law,
which, totter certain circunattences, was supposed to
clash withltho common law of the land. Ito was not
enough of a lawyer to say exactly how that might be,
but he very much doubted the accuracy of the position.
Be that as it might, those who professed the Roman
Catholic religion must take the consequences of it,
whatever they ucight be, and it was absurd
to step in for the purpose of defending them from
injuries to which they themselves declared they
could never be exposed. Very unfair arguments
had been urged on this point, based upon quotations
of obsolete enactments, for the purpose of proving that
danger existed from the exercise of the Pope's temporal
power. This might have been a valid argument in the
middle ages, but the usages of those times have passed
away, and there was no one who believed that they
would ever be revived; nor was the argument brought
forward except for political or party purposes. If the
Pope had intended to form political combinations dan-
gerous to England, he had taken the very worst method
of carrying out his object. A more plausible argument,
perhaps, was, that it was an invasion of the Queen's
prerogative, because he had divided the kingdom into
territorial districts, and conferred titles of honour. With
regard to the first ground, he would observe, that if a
bishop were to exercise any authority, it must be within
certain districts. With regard to the second, he might
remark that the word title wes used in an equivocal
sense. It might be a title of rank—(Hear)—or it might
be a description of the capacity in which a man acted,
and that was its meaning in this case.—(Hear, hear.)
Another point which had had great influence on some
minds was the supposed insults which had been offered
to the British nation, Ho could not help thinking that
there was a great deal of national vanity mixed up
with this cry.—(Hear, hear.) lie did not think
the House of Commons could deny that epis-
copacy was of divine origin, or that it was improper for
the State to interfere with religious matters. There was
no danger now with reference to the Roman Catholic
religion; there might have been danger at one time, but
that time had passed. Because there had been a great
outcry in the country, and because the country had been
lashed into fury, the House of Commons conceived they
were bound to do something, but they did not know pre-
cisely what. Now this was quite wrong, for it was the
duty of the House of Commons to moderate public ex-
citement, not to pander to it. Would not every one
who reflected on the proceedings in Englund during the
last six months feel ashamed of what had been done? If
every one did not feel ashamed, then he should feel
ashamed of his country. He was scandalised when
walking the streets of the metropolis to see the symbol
of their common religion—the cross, made a mockery of.
He should give his strenuous opposition to the Bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL would remark that Irish gentlemen
appeared to have committed an inaccuracy as to the ob-
ject they should pursue and the cause with which they
were entrusted, in resisting the motion for the Speaker
leaving the chair. lle would remind Irish Members that
the success of resistance must depend on the talent and
energy with which it was conducted.
Mr. TRELAWNY would implore her Majesty's Go-
vernment not to allow themselves to go on with this
Bill. He was desirous of supporting Government, but
in this instance they had got into a wrong groove, and
therefore lie could not support them. If the Bill were
successful, it would be a persecuting Bill; if it wore
simply a name-culling Bill, then it would be abusive;
and in either case it could not have his support. He
could not see any harm in giving the Roman Catholic
bishops these titles. Where was the consistency of Go-
vernment in supporting the Bequests Act, the grant to
Maynooth, and the Education Bill, and objecting to these
titles?—(Hear.) The canon law might be oppressive;
but if it were so, it was a matter that concerned Ca-
tholics and not Protestants; let, then, the Catholics fight
the matter out with their superiors. He considered
that a law like the present, instead of checking the
progress of the Roman Catholic religion, would tend
very much to strengthen its position and spread its doc-
trines.

Mr. P. HOWARD said the Noble Lord (Lord J.
Russell) had stated that the friends of liberty all over
the Continent were looking with anxiety at the decision
of the House of Commons. He should be glad to learn
what continental legislative assembly had expressed an
opinion in favour of the Bill passing. It was not the
friends of liberty, but the friends of intolerance, who
wished the Bill to pass. He advocated a friendly
feeling with Austria, and he also advocated liberty of
conscience in Eegland and everywhere else. He would
remind the House of the liberality which prevailed in
France towards other religions than that of the na-
tional religion. A Protestant at that moment filled a
high post in the French Government. Ono of the
arguments which seemed to have most effect on
the House had been used by her Majesty's Soli-
citor-General, who spoke of the execrable mixture of
the spiritual and temporal which degraded his (Mr. P.
Howard's) faith. He would attempt to grapple with
that argument. In feudal times, owing to various causes,
a very great amount of political temporal power was
conceded to the Sovereign Pontiffs. Bat with the fall
of feudalism that temporal power ceased. But had the
assumption of power been really abandoned? He would
prove it had been disavowed by one of the moat learned
of modern books. In Pope Leo Xll.'s encyclical letter
to the Mexican President this remarkable declaration
was made, " That the peculiar office of Pope required
that Popes should not interfere with any affairs not con-
nected with the church." It was a mistake to suppose that the popular feeling of England had been universally
expressed against the proceedings of the Pope. not Thehad
great counties of Lancaster and Middlesex had
any public expression of opinion on the subject.
the county represented by the leader of them Opposition in
agi
nosnt theth e
that House (Bucks) had not had a countrstedeeiaign
question. From 1793 to 1829 no law
Catholics of England having bishops,eaxnd the restriction
imported in 1829
on English bishops having titles wasen2As the Catholics of
from Irish Acts of Parliament.
the State, the Go-
England claimed no support. I
legal
hthndeiyr
tittin
spiritual
vernment had no claim to interfere inuiteerrfeer7ey
the
affairs.—(Hear, hear.). oxist, and it was • h pain
with
Catholics of England did not
they had read
the vituperative language used by the
First Minister of the Crown in his letter to the
Bishop of Durham on the subject. Such language wa-e
he believed, without a precedent either in this or any
other country. It ought not to be forgotten that the
nation was indebted for Magna Charta, and the great
foundation of its liberties, to Catholics. It ought to be
kept in mind that the origin of the quarrel between
Henry 11. and Becket was the interference of the King
with the election by the chapter of Canterbury, and that
when the Sovereign Pontiff assert( d a temporal autho-
rity, the first person who stood forward to protest
against it was Archbishop Langton. The Catho-
lics of the present day had no desire to interfere with
temporal affairs, but they would resist any interference
of the civil power with their spieitual rights. He had
always been, and would always he, a supporter of poli-
tical reform and of civil and re ligious liberty; but he
would oppose all attempts, such a s this Bill, which inter-
fered between men and their Malcer.—(Hear.)
The LORD ADVOCATE said it would be unpar-
donable for him at that late stege of the discussion to
enter upon the question in any detail. Although the
aggression might not have , produccd so strong
and immodiato a demonstration of public opinion
in Scotland as it had in England, still, as
it had excited considerable interest in Scotland,
he felt anxious shortly and simply to reflect
the the opinion of the peeplo of Scotland on the sti Joe.
He should confine hia,:itlf
and to state his owe.
to the broad and simple principle upon which
it
ap-
peared to Lim the question mainly clopondcd.—(Hear.)

In the outset, he might be permitted to say that quite
as universal es the feeling of indignation at the
proceedings of Rome wes the feeling of regret that ail
circumstances should have occurred to render the pr,'
sent measure necessary.—(Cries of " Hear, heart')
Since 1829 he believed there had been in this country,
and especially among the Protestant part of the comma'
pity, a sincere, honest, end growing desire that religiou§
differences should mingle as little as possible with relit
giouc diecussions.—( Fit ar, hear.) The removal of dis-
abilities, whether from Catholic or from Protestant Die'
seaters, had induced a more friendly intercourse among
persons of all religious denominations, and that increased
intercourse had naturally led to greater liberality of
opinion on all sides.—(Hear.) So far from their being
any desire in the people of this country to revive the old
flame of religious intolerance, or to ransack ancient sta•
tutes for forgotten penalties against Roman Catholic§
and other Dissenters, he believed the very reverse to be
the fact; and the moral which he drew from the expres"
sions of opinion which had taken place was, that nothing
but a sense of over whelmisg necessity could ever have
prompted them,—(Hear.) it was not difficult to disco'
ver the real cause of the whole agitation. Several Boat
Gentlemen who had taken a part in the debate bad
spoken as if the brand of discord which had been thrown
among the people had come from the hands of the
Government.—(Hear, hear.) He should accept that. as,
the real test of the question at issue. Considering tO.a,
the measure said to he so intolerant had come from !Ile
hands of a party who had fought the battle of toleration
in the worst of times—who from 1829 had been ti-f,
strongest end firmest supporters of the principle hot
toleration, but who, in identifying themselves with t a
principle, had not escaped the sneers and taunts of the
opponents of Roman Catholic concession, he thought it
was perfectly plain that nothing could have prompted
them to introduce such a measure unless it was a strong
and overwhelming necessity.—(Hear, hear.) In hiec au
humble opinion, the Papal rescript was the caw° o'„ili.
the division of opinion that had arisen, and was i".
Merit reason why, at least, some measure should be la;
troth:Tod, not SO much For any encroachment it made
the supsemscy of the Queen, although that alone stroller
have justified the meat-tire, nor for the political character
of the Church of Rome, hut for that which lay at face
root of both these points—the assertion on the 'e-af
of the rescript, in language not to be mistaken,
B'o
spiritual domination and supremacy, not over li°l;:tis
Catholics only, but over the whole population of
country.—(Llear, hear.) If the Roman Catholics
this country, or if the Pope in concert with theta'
had come to the Government liko dissenters and other
tolerated bodies, and with that courtesy and humility
(Hear, hear)—and with that respect which ought t°.},-
b-
shown•towards the Government and institutions of te-
country in which they lived, and had intimated :belt,
desire to re-organise their hierarchy on the footing best
adapted to ecclesiastical government, he did not in )Sine
e
that the Government—he was sure that the people of lot
country, attached as they were to toleration—would apt 6
have been inclined to inquire particularly into the 'OP)
by which they might wish to affect it.—(Hear, h°61.:1,
He did not say that whet had been done could have been
done under any circumstances; all he meant to say. wee'
that if the Roman Catholics had manifested a desire.
re-organise their ecclesiastical hierarchy in conforall'ila
with the laws and constitution of the land, they she
.11,
now have had a totally different question to deal wilit'be#
(hear.) But he could find nothing of that kind in 'l,,
rescript. So far from speaking the language of one as
ing for toleration, it read like the language of one
hod the will, though not the power, to be intolerant'
o
(Hear.) The titles given were but the reflection of rahe
assertion of ecclesiastical supremacy put forth 1116 a
rescript.—(Hear.) It had been said that no claim had ;',",f,
made for temporal supremacy. It appeared to him
before admitting the claim to spiritual supremacy ill 'bt
sense in which it was set out in the rescript, they ougra
to recollect that the l'ope's claim to temporal supra:l%lj
—even when his domination was at its beight-fcrra
based on his spiritual supremacy.—(llear.) It had be
said that the Pope's rescript was necessary, fecal's° i,
Roman Catholic hierarchy was incomp s
lete without 6,
and the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone had rb
ferred the House to various bodies of dissenters, whop
asserted, had the power of doing the very thing
Roman Catholic bishops and the Pope were now
hibited doing. But there was a great difference betwe'
tho acts of voluntary associations within the king(lo,l;
and the acts done by persons at the court of a fortr
potentate.—(Hear.) Besides, no dissenting body, as
r'",,
as ho knew, had ever done, or had ever attempted to ;
what the Pope had done. Neither the Wesleyane 13°4
the Free Church of Scotland claimed any power ex,reeirie
over those who belonged to their own persuasion.
Scottish Episcopal Church had been referred to, and aeo
lusion had been made to Bishop Skinner, of Aberdeen'
who, it seemed, had excommunicated one of his clergi;
men for an ecclesiastical offence. That case /ce
very illustrative of the argument ho was now main
taining. The Bishop had published a sentence "
excommunication, which the clergyman did 001
,
choose to submit to, and conceiving that the Blab%
had no right to publish such a sentence, the clergYo3%,
brought his action in the courts of Scotland. The MON'
came into court and described himself as Dr. Sirilll3eri
exercising episcopal functions within the district °..
Aberdeen. The question arose whether Dr. Skinnecl
was privileged to exercise such authority as he bad
exercised. As far as the case went, the Court fa%
that there was no privilege in the case, and the case was
terminated by a compromise. That case, therefore,
was the worst illustration which could be given of th
power of the Scottish Episcopal Church to assume title°
or to exercise power.—(Hear, hear.) He denied that it
was an essential element of toleration to grant to ate"
lerated body all the privileges which it might think ne
cessary for the perfection of its system. A single WO"
tration would suffice. It might be essential that their
clergy should be protected in the exercise of their die'
cipline, and yet the exercise of that discipline might be
inconsistent with other laws of the lend. No doubt 0
clergyman of the Established Church could Or
anything which the law allowed, but it di"
not follow that those clergymen who were only
tolerated, and who were not in the same position
as regarded the law, could do the same things;
He (the Lord Advocate) spoke as a dissenter hints!ll,
and not as a member of the Church of England. He
should be sorry to think that it was any attribute of the
principle of toleration that any person should come for-
ward and claim a right to predominate as a spiritual
ruler over the consciences of the
people of this country.
That, indeed, would, in his opinion, be the deadliest blot'
that toleration could receive. He (the Lord Advocate)
denied that Honourable Gentlemen on the other aide
were the advocates of toleration ; and he was perfectly
satisfied that the measure under discussion did not trench
in the slightest degree on the principle of toleration-
He (the Lord Advocate) had said nothing of the Ear°.
peen view of the matter, though that was insisted 01111
many as of much importance. It had been thought that
the Act of the Pope was derived from a source much
eider than the apparent sound; but as there had been 6
public assertion made in the most unequivocal language
that the Pope had a right to jurisdiction over the lends
it could not be passed without notice. It might be said
that this assumption should be despised; but seeing the
effect the question had in Europe' this country
could not afford to despise it.—(Eiear, hear.) It was
quite plain to him—and the people of this country ""
was satisfied felt in the same way—that if it were true
this was only a tentative measure to he followed uP by
others of a similar nature, the Government could net
afford to treat it with contempt, without giving encou-
ragement to other Acts, the direct tendency of which
would be to promote religious intolerance as well to
civil discord. He believed that it was true policy
t
stop it at once.—(Hear.) On the other hand, he tboug
that the Government could not afford to despise it, he'
cause the people of England were as strong in their Pr d'
testantism at this day as they were in the year 1650; am::
that if the measure before the House had not been intr°
duced, when an insult bad been offered to their faith'
nothing would have suffered so much, in his opinion, als
the sacred principle of toleration, which might have been
swept away in the high tide of public indignation.--
(Hear, hear.) As regarded the measure, what was
wanted was a strong expression of feeling on the
subject. No party in the country had a better right
to complain of the act of the Pope than the true-hearted
and loyal Catholics of this
of .i otherscoluntry. that could perhaps
be devised to excite bad feelings, while at the same
The measure
ebrefoee
the House went the least„
time it was all-sufficient for its object. Toleration bad
been talked of. Was the measure an infringement of
h principle?
Was the Act of 1829 an infringement of
thet principle of toleration? Hit was not, then how could.l7.
this measure be called an infringement of that principle
which only met an assumption of spiritual authority
over the poops of a district on the part of the Pope.--
(Hear, hear.) He did not know enough of the system
of the hierarchy of the
Roman Catholic Church to speak
positively; he was, however, told it was impossible for
it to exercise its practice unless it took titles from terrie
torial districts. But had the Roman Catholic bishops
in this country exercised their functions for the last two
centuries, or had they not? And if tbey have, had thel
taken in that period territorial titles from the districts
in which they ministered ?—(Hear, bear.) He asked for
information on the subject. In the Scottish Episcopal
original Church,
system,
tli'hichconformed as closely as possible to the
orditnaakteinon
placeand thefor
thead same
administration of
the sacrament had d:
though it was not until within the last few years
that the bishops had assumed territorial titles and eccle-
siastical dignity. The passing of the Bill would not,
therefore, interfere with the functions of the Roman
Catholic bishops. Representations had been made to
the effect that the people of Scotland cared very
little for the question at issue. The reverse,
t Idovr-
hat
ever, was the case.—(Hear, hear.) It was true _
they had a great fear of Popery in the north, and F 7
thought, therefore, that it was not derogatory to t"
dignity of his fellow-countrymen that these demonstr.fr
tions were not greater; but those who thought tl3°
temper of the country was changed were grievously rola'
taken when they imagined that the old spirit of Scot-
land was abated in that respect in the slightest degree,
or that because the people had become more tolerant'
they were one whit less strong in their fetith.—(llear'
Mr. REYNOLDS was rejoiced to hear the legal
voice of Scotland in the debate, though it was certainly
feeble and moderate; the legal voice of England his,'
been heard from the mouths of the Attorney and So:
eitor-General; the filet law officer of the Crown for
Ireland was, however, silent.—(Laughter.) He (fir'
Reynolds) wanted to hear that lion. and Learned Gee:
tleman describe the law and feeling of Ireland.--(17;
laugh.) The lion. and Learned Lord Advocate he"
tallied of toleration.—(Laughter.) What was tolera-
tion?—(Laughter.) Did the Hon. Gentleman mean that
ten millions of her Majesty's subjects, who believed ird,
the faith of their ancestors, were only to be tolerated' .
It was an offensive,
Catholics an infamous p
should haverase. The Right Hon.
Gentlemen said the eito,tr:udguilctieedr
themselves with humility. He (Mr. Reynolds) did not
ine 3erstend the application of that phrase.—(Laughter
and Hear.) He (Mr. Reynolds) did not entertain any
fooling of humility.--(Laughter and near.) On tine