The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

11 Of
• „ these acts,: and said that it behoved the country to the House ? He might turn to those
~fifth-rate men whefo
.'anquite whether the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern- made themselvea the . lecturers-. out of that House of _those
•11nnt, by the course he had pursued, and by exciting a feeling whose opinions he entertained, but who, in that House, never
:of. Protestants against Catholics, •had not been ,playing into uttered a word—(Hear, and a laugh)—and he would ask them
the Pope's hands, and whether the whole conduct of the Go- where would have been the cause of Parliamentary reform if
,vernment on this occasion had not been lamentable and dis- Catholic emancipation had not been carried? Where would
,ereditable. have been the cause of free trade, or where might it be, if
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but was almost . tbe Roman Catholics declared against it?—(Hear.) But he
immediately re-opened. Upon our re-admission, was consoled on that part of the subject by reflecting that
Mr. KEOGH .was addressing the House. The Nob e Lord , there was not one distinguished Free-trader—he did not re-
-at the head of the Government had not Yet arrived at a fer to those gentlemen who shot their small arrows at them,
13rOPer perception of the-dangers with which this Bill threat- but who. never stood up against them—but to those Free-
, I?#d the empire, a.pd especially Ireland.--,-(ileac, hear.) Did traders, who sopportedbode the question bota.that -House and
.fhe 'Noble Lord.intend to put.this act in force or;not„ in Ire-, met ..of itthat
,there.was .not epee who was not-against this!
' Peel si
P."? :prOfeseed that it was necessary, andthat it. wile , Bill: The distingitisheilMinebers.of , siyr
ts intention to put it in force in Ireland: He said, too, Government were against it e the :_aon. Member". Wile:
that it wee a similar Act to that of 1829, to which the cheater, the Hoh. blember for the West Riding, and the'
.Boman Ca' holies of Ireland hadsubmitted. -But he told the Hun: Member for .MOntrose were againatit.—(Hear.)- --He
Noble Lord that it was a different Act from that of iBl9, would. warn the Noble Lord,- then, before he put-thiS Bill'
and that the people of Ireland would not submit to it. In upon the table, that by it he might arouse again in the,people
.1846 the Charitable Bequests Act passed, the effect of which of Ireland. who were just emerging from the consequences of
114 to repeal the.. offensive provisions 0f.411e. Act of .1829, pestilence and famineolud just reaching perhaps the shore
and to. legalise that which was illegal before.. He (Mr. on a frail plank, the fanatical spirit of
.sectarian, aoirtmaity,,
• eegh) maintained, that after the passing of that Bill it was . and perhaps invotve• them again another twenty years'
'l_lot illegal for the Roman Catholic archbishops and bi.hope struggle. It' indeed that struggle:should come, the resole
seauine the titles prohibited by the Act of 1829, and that would be, he was convinced, as it had. been before, victo-
the Penalties of that Act amid not be successfully enforced. rious to the people of Ireland, aid never would they sheathe
The Act of 1829 was a remedial measure, and the preamble the sword until they had deprived those who had oppressed
tdoeteolraerebde e n
..Purported. to remove restraints and restrictions that had there. them of the power of oppreiseion.—(Cheeri) They won that
imposed. But the preamble of the preterit Biel struggle before, and they would win it ,again. The Noble
•in effeat. that the assumption of the prohibited Lord boasted, and, if he did not retract all he lehd'done, it,
titles
e, was inconsistent , with the rights of the bishops and was,the proudest beast he could make, that he assisted thenh
neishops of the Established Church. That recital was in recovering and reclaiming religious liberty. If then a,
.untrue. In the preamble of the present Bill it was stated, tyrannical maj.,rity in that House the Noble .Lord struck
'``and whereas it may be doubted whether the recited enact• down their liberties that night, they would go; forth from,
e,iend,to the assumption of the title of archbishoseer that House and would never ce-z.e until they had re-esl,a-
-4-Bu9P of a pretended province or diocese, &c." He asseved Wished ebem. They would -never be intimillated by trio.'
• at such •a statement was not true, and that the allegation mentary defeat They had' br2ved scenes of persecution
Which it was said might. be doubted was. not doubted. The the avenging sword of Cromwell was upon them ; the iii••
21ezt assertion was, that the attempt to establish under sidiaus treachery of the Stuarts beset them ; exactions and
,colour of authority from the see of Rome or otherwise such eontications-Lhe used the word openly, pleinly, and ad-.
pretended sees, provinces, -or dioceses, is illegal And. void." visedly,—the contlseatietis in which. the ancestors 'of the.
'lle (Mr. Keogh) denied that. The preainb!e then contained Noble Lord had taken so conspicuous a part, were upon
three distinct falsehoods, tor the next affirmation was, that them. But they had triumphed over theme - and would
l'ethettasumption of ecclesiastical titles in respect thereof ie triumph again ; and they would do so, not forgetting their
;"COnsiStellt with the rights intended to be protected by the allegiance to their Sovereign ; but, while acknowledging the:
,-.
"'t.'d enactment." Lord J. Russell also knew that that wae allegiance, they would continue to assert, as "the Constitution
'3l°t true, and he had told the Heuse so. He (Mr. Keogh) de. allowed them to do, their allegiance in spiritual matters to
'tiered that one Clause of the Bill contained everything the supreme-head of the Roman Catholic Church.
that the omitted clauses would have enacted, and " Duns domes 'Berm Capitol' immobile mecum
thise, t-h
was not his opinion only, • but the opinion of Accelet, imperiumque pater Roarms habebit.
"n
r.P. Kelly, Mr. Brodie, and Mr. Baddeley. - The pre- Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Honoand Learned
sent Bill made no reference to the Charitable Bequests Gentleman had certainly a very difficult task to perform, and
lie had. warned the late Attorney-General (Sir J. he certainly had no' hesitation in saying that be did so with
that- the present Bill would repeal the Charitable very great ability. He should ewe, howeve', that it ap-
bequests Act, and this opinion had'been borne out by the . peered to him the case was beyond even the powers and talents
three
,eminent lawyers to whom he had just referred. The of-the Hon. and. Learued Gentleman. Th 9 statement he
ieharitable Bequests Act provided that the voluntary endow. made- on a former. -occasion, and alluded to by other Mem-
'file
Bill ntof the Roman Catholic Church should be legal, but if leers of the House, was, that with reels et to Ireland, the
this, nipassed the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops titles'taken from sees, was forbidden ,sieve 1829, and that
,ver could accept any endowment or eolument under the therefore Roman Catholic bishops were under the greatest
"h,,neertwisions of the Act of 1846. , The first clause attached E. persecution from that time to thie,er that the present oat was
Penalty to any person who, not being authorised by law, not one of pains and penalties. It appeared to him that that
osuould " assume or use the name, style, or title of archbishop, proposition was undeniable, and the Hon. and Learned Gen-
..-oishop, or dean of any city, town, or place, or of any terra- Heinen endeavoured to evade it. He (Lord John Russell)
'qty or district (under any designation or description what- would next refer to his observation: with respect to the
aoever) in the United Kingdom." Then how was a Roman necessity -of consulting the feelings of the people •
Catholic bishop to be described? He could not discover any ~f England. He said no doubt it was necessary
ienguage that would lawfully, describe a Roman Cath.lic to consult them, but he did not say it was ne-
v
oishOp if these words were left in the enactment.—(Cheers.) cessary to consult the Protestant, and all he
.did was to
'VI Noble Lord was playing fast and loose with the country. consult the national feeling.—i Cheers.) lie should' say in
ei he did not intend to put the Act in force, and, if be did, the same way, that when the Pope attempted to ob.—
:40..strangled the religious liberties of the Roman Catholic rain a complete dominion over France, that those who re
Church. The Noble Lord said that Ireland had not coin s sisted it were those whose feelings ought to have been Con-
picked of the Prohibition of, ecclesiastical titles. by . the suited as the people of France, and although the great majo-
Act ot'lB-e9. The reason wits, because it had been all a "icy were Roman Catholics, they were not prepared to bow
i,,ellanie" He did not want to see other public men left to, the knee to a sovereign not their own, and a foreign prince.
FietrY out this Bill who might have as strong a desire (he —(Cheers.) It might well be said in that instance, that the
Wouldnot say a stronger desire) as the Noble Lord to restrict reelinge of the,people of France ought to have been con-
the 'religious . liberty of the people of Ireland. It was ii,, "tilted, because they would not submit to decrees which
Westin or hallucination to suppose . that,. at some remote tine them Rome.—(Hear, hear.). It certainly was a mis-
period during the next quarter of a centurye there might b, irtutie, as he said on 3 former occasion, that Catholic Eaten-
ether. Administratem in the country who might *aerie. swition was so long delayed, because, as it was truly said by
lon put. the Bill into force. Ha implored the Noble Lord c.ilr. Grattan, the effect of it was perfectly to'iociirporate the
Withdraw the last remaining section of his Bill, lie did ne, ':ornatit Catholics with the See of Rome, and he asked no
Sieuee what the Noble Lord had 'done for Ireland ; but, i. .et er evidence of the truth of that assertion, than the speech
tnia Bill passed, it would upset everything he had ever done. the Honour *We Gentleman who just sat down.—(Cheers.)
.
and place the millions of Roman Cath lies In Ireland hi ~ the Honourable and Learned S'entleinan said that he did
Worse
Position than they were in before.— (Cheers.) To: ,ot at all mind the' Act of 18e9, because it was never
Noble Lord said that the feelings 'of the people of England niforced, and he called on him. (Lord John Rusoll) to
meet be Consulted. He adinitted that the great ,majority ct =ay would he now do so. That question had little to do
the people of England were Protestant; but nine-tenths of with the present Bith because if the provisions were . never
e
people of Ireland were Catholic; and was it be- enforced, or if it were our determination to enforce them
heming in a 'great Minister to talk of coercing the against all those who took their titles from existing sees,
"Hems opinions of one section of the people to' the-present Act would have been (Mite sufficient, mid no•
!,',ltisfy the religious prejudices of the other?—(Cheers.) uew Bill would have been required. Then • the Honourable
the Noble Lord 'had said,- over and over again, that the and Learned Gentleman asked, did they mean to enforce it
krOceedirig of the See of Rome was a direct insult to the in the same sense as the provisions of the present Bill?
Protestant feeling of this country. Last Friday night 202 and 'quoted the opinion, of a Learned Gen denian to show that
Umbers of that House were ready to vote for the motiou of the first clause did not apply to Ireland wit It the same
the Hon, • membei•foe Stafford. The form of that motion • stringency as the present law. If no spiritual functions
Was that the act of the See of Rome had been encouraged by could be exercised, should the present Bill become a Jaw?
thepreceedings of the Government, and that was the truth. flow was it, that in spite of an Act in 1829, these functions
Wear.) He believed it; he was ready to prove it O and he were exercised from that day to this, and nothing was done
Would give the House, before he sat down, greater evidence to prevent them? The Honour‘Ole and Learned Gentleman
than the 'Noble Lerd dreamt of. on the subject.—(Hear.) ~aid they did not enforce the present Act, but he should
Relied before invited .the Noble' Lerd to a pleasing re :member that before that was done an offence must be
Thiniscence of hie Own speeches in that House, and would committed, and evidence given. The blame could not be
therefore not go over that ground- again •, but, invited by attached to Governments with which he was connected far
the minority of 202 Members of that HOtase who were not enforcing the Act since 829. It was not alone to
ready to. vote that the proceedings of the Government had Whig Governments, but to those of the Duke of Welling-
encouraged the act of the See of Renee, he would tell then, ton, and when Lord De Grey and Lord Haddington were
they Might most safely come to that _conclusion without the Lords-Lieutenant in Ireland, and the present Chief Jus-
ieast injustice to the Governnient. The Noble Lord was • ice of the'Oueenoi Bench in that country was Attorney-
igraidof that issue. He knew well there were many per- eteneral. But, independently of that, the Roman Catholic
eons who went with him into the Lobby who were of that -.relates of Ireland changed the law, and did not in scarcely
opinion, and the Hon. Baronet the Member for the Urii- in instance, use any assumption of sees or dioceses in Ireland.
',trait), of Oxford haddistilictly stated on a former occasion, Well, then, if with an exception, a most reverend' arch-
that the conduct, of the See of Rome had been encourage'.' bishop, who took a title to which he had no claim, no public
by.the Government in Ireland. The Noble Lord knew act of those prelates was signed by their titles, surely there
that ,
if that were the issue tendered by the .Hon. Member ,vas no necessity for enforcing a law which wile not violated.
...,fer Stafford he would have been in a minority, and moo --( Hear, hear.) If the Act was obeyed, what could they
rightly would he have been so., The_ Noble Lord in 1844 expect further ? What was intended was to prevent the
1845, and 1846, when he Was in oppesitiou— ostentatious assumption of those titles, and if that was
SooLord J. RUSSELL —Nut whet I was in opposition iu eheyeei the Government would be satisfied with that Wee-
-4646. thence ; so that the difficulty of the Hon. and Learned
Mr. KEOGH—WeII then 'in 1844 and 1845, made cer- ;:ientleman was no difficulty at all. What was done in Ire-
Ulu observitione on 'this subject; but in 1848 he said. ? 'I he Roman Catholics to,lt titles from the ancient
I will set everything right. I withdrew what I Bain area since a period forty years atter the Retormatien, and
'before; I apologise to tue country and the thing is settled hey saw no reason to interfere with that. It ought not to
as it ought to have been ," and the Noble Lord said, it ';e the business of this, or of any other Government, to Make
;newer to a question whether-he would sanction the appoint- out, 'cases agains them by inquiry; but when. a parson
inept of a British',Mileject by the See of Rime to a bishopric !ernes forward and declares that the Pope has divided this
Ara this country With territorial jurisdiction, that he woulei country into districts for the establishMent of dioceses, and
11,21 consent to it. But -in February, 1849, after Cardina, • hat by his authority he has abolished the see of Canterbury,
i',,Zasenaan had been gazetted as . Bishop of Westminster, the Limn he must say that was not a question of exercisieg reli-
-.l?!.eble !Lord said— eious functions—(Cheers)—but a daring defiance of the
"But
.I own I "do not think that this is a matter of very oithority of the Crown, and what might be pro-
*hat importance. It was yeti' agreeable to the feelings t•• early called an act of a igresSion to which the Perliament
tette Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops that thee maid not shut its eyes.— (Hear, hear.) This was an
'euould be called by the titles by which they were usually fl'ence against the nation, and they could not therefore
tieeignated. They have received those titles; but that does except Ireland as a part of the U 'iced Kingdom, What vat
notinepty any legal claim to authority, and I cannot coil- required by the Act of 1829 has been done, but if in Ireland
9eiVe, therefore, that it is necessary for this House to take and in England by assuming these titles, they shoal(' set up
-41,Y •_
,eproceedings in the matter." . . . this authority against that of the Crown, in that case the
elle Hear, hear.) Perhaps his Learned Friends on the other Crown ought to take steps to assert its authority.—(Cheers.)
'me 'would give some explanation, or, as the lawyers said. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said the Act of 1829 was
•Iv.ould put in a special' demurrer to what the Noble Lord 'repealed by the Bequests Act, which had been brought in
laid; but he found the Noble Lord's colleagues more itnpe- by the Government of Sir Robert Peel. Was it likely that
thous and more anxious that no doubt .should remain on the the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon should
in-
; Sind of the See of Rome as to what it ought'to do. On the i reduce a measure for the repeal of an important part of an
27th of July, 1849. he fcaind that in the House of Lords, Act which gave the right to Roman Catholics of sitting in
,Lerd Redeedale 'put a question to Karl Grey, and that Noble chat _House without ever adYerting to such an alteration in
Lord declining to answer, a colleague sitting beside bins that measure. The words were, with regard to bequests,
thought he was acting injudiciously, and said that if any iu trust for any bishop or archbishop exercising functions
Cerdinateame over to this country, everyone would call him in certain districts;" and with regard to priests, they were
__`!)iis Eminence." The Noble Lord who gave that answei described as persons "having paetoral care and superintend-
was the Earl of Carlite; and yet in face of those assertions mice over congiegatione of persons professing the Roman
the. Noble Lord spoke t time insult of the' See of Rome, when Catholic religion." The next to eertion of the Honourable
reading those declarations in the, Houses of Parliament, it Ind Learned Gentleman was, that it was doubtful
appointed a bishop to preside over the spiritual interests of whether the preamble was borne out by the law.
eeotnan Catholics in this country.—(Hear.) It happened It vas the general opinion of lawyers, that by
that he' (Mr. Keogh) was at Rome when all this mischief law they could - not aseurne titles of any eioceoes
occurred;' but a:remarkable fact came to his notice there, in this country; but when the Attorney-General stated that
and he did not know whether the Noble Lord the Foreign there was a doubt upon that Point they were justified in
Secretary was in his place, but, if so, he had no doubt the acting on that opinion. The Honourable and Learned Gen-
Noble Lord was aware of the fact. Cardinal Wiseman was tleman expressed an opinion that the law prohibiting the
created' Archbishop of Westminster, and directly the matter assumption of titles was mull and void. The Honourable
Was publisbed it was a subject of great rejoicing in Rome. Now and Learned Member tor Midhurst did not act upon that
this country, had a diplomatic representative at Rome. We impression, for he did not propose to insert the words t• be
had a consul located there; and over the doors of his man- it enacted," but the words "be it declared." He could see
Sion, were placed the British arms. He (Mr. Keogh) saw whether the preamble was borne out by the law. The
the divelliog of the.,British consulate brilliantly illuminated Honourable and Learned Gentleman next. stated that this
in honour of the appoictment.--e Hear, hear.) Was the are Bill was a violation of religious liberty, and in metaphorical
of Rome, then, thbe under the impression that nothing would language threatened them with the resistance they might
be so distasteful to the British Government as that appoint- expect. to receive from the Roman Catholics 01 'refold, when
ment for which the British consul had illuminated his man- he said, they would never sheath their swords until they
*it*? The Noble Lord had made a great :eat of the subject, had overcome their oppressors. Ha was sorry they should
regard the Bill in the light of persecution, but on that ace
of synod in Ireland; he said that all might have gone quietly
but for that Synod of Thurles, which InteEtered with internal count they were not called upon to resign a tittle if the
affairs The Noble bird said the Catholics of Ireland had de- rights inherent in the Crown.—( Hear. hear.) They must
ceived him, but they had only returned a complinent. The pre.erve the sovereignty and independence of the nation.
Noble Lord when he came to deal with the Protestant eccle- 'Re was not prepared to • exchange the religious I•berty
elastics 'in Ireland' by no means objected to their interference which they enjoyed in this country, and which the Roman
in this 'most violent manner with their flocks on the same Catholics would enjoy after the paving of this Bill
temporal questions 'which he accused the Roman Catholic for the religious liberty in Rome.—(Cheery;,) They were
bishops of improperly interfering with. The Noble Lord told that there was a person in prison in Rome for circle.
*hid recollect that' in 1832, 17 out of 20 Protestant bishops lading a translation in Italian of the Sacred Scriptures.—
In -Ireland, for they bad 20 then, and 1,700 Protestant clergy, (Hear, hear.) It was not at Rome, but in another Italian
Protested against the system of national education.—(Hear.) state.—(Heer, hear, from Mr. Keogh.) The Hon. Gentle-
And the' Noble Lord-who led the party on his side of the inao thought it, a great triumph that the case had not rice
:Rouse, supported by-the Noble Lord opposite, said those curled in Rome, but it was under the influence Rome that
'figbt rev. prelates and those members of the clergy had a the occurrence had taken elece.- Would the Hon. Gentle-
right to. say that, disapproving of the eYotem, they would man say that Prot edants would be allowed to build a church
riot allow the attendance at the schools of the children of at Rome, to go there publicly, and to defend their opinions
their 'flecks. It was perfectly competent for clergymen of :le here? No such thing. —( Hear.) That was the sort of
the' Established Church to say that, but •it was not religious liberty they would enjoy at Rome. He rejoiced
competent to the Catholic clergy to say they would not that he could read " Whateley'e Logic," and other works
-clisiallowe but that they would not recommend their flocks prohibited at Rome. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman pro-
tO semi their children to the mixed schools of education in duced an excommunition pronounced by a bishop in Scot-
Ireland.—( Hear, bear.) • Then the Noble Lord spoke of the land.—(Hear.) The title under which that bishop aeted
synod, and was enormously cheered, as if it . had been a was not legal, the clergyman bad therefore an action
Monster that had never before been heard of. Bat there was against the bishop. and got a verdict, and the bishop was
the. Synod of Ulster,--of the Presbyterian Church of Scot- obliged to compromise the action. He esteemed himself for-
land; there: 'was the Synod of the United Presbyterian tunate that he could compare this country for the enjoyment
Church Synod—(A laugh)—and there was the Synod of. of religious liberty with any other, where' the Church of Rome
United Original Seceders: He must tell the Noble Lord that had the prevailing power. The lion. Gentleman displayed
since • his famous Durham letter no one would venture to an indignation which did him honour, against what had
say that the Catholic
people of ia
Ireland ought to send their lean done towards a Minister of the King of Sardinia. Let
children to those seteinaries.—( ) But said the Noble him be sure if these doctrines of the See of, Rome, not the
'Lord, there was a case in Sardinia. lie thought it would have doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion, but the political
been,more apposite and cogent with the Kellum Catholics; in doctrines which they endeavoured to extend over Europe,
reland, since the Reformation,. if the Nobleet Lord could have
i ions independence were to prevail, he would not enjoy half the liberty and
said there was a case there in which
reign.--(
halt the power of expressing his opinionsand defending them
the, in that House which he now did under. a Protestant Sove-
was stifled by the hierarchy instead of rtriedgvetlhliantgtbheis.yPe,iiadd:
'Alps. Rut, in sober seriousness, he said
foot came out in that , Hem., hear.) He •••eoelled the statement of the Hon.
worst part of the Bill. The • , ;Member that this was a persecuting measure. It was a
political meaiiiire against a political encroachment, and he
Part of the Bill to which- he had alluded more ohries thanenileaguni
east.l
act of forearm eggreesion.—(Cheers.)
the letters and'speeches of the Noble Lord would not suffer the name of religious liberty to cover an
If there should be a question as to the religious libertyhof the
Episcopal Church of Scotland, no one would .be. more
preserve
Mr. BRIGHT said he was much struck with an obeerva-
Risghr
et
sHs
no:inn Baronet
that hn tchnen
he was •1 when he
than .he would be to • insert a clause • in the Bill to tion made by
6vethaes
it; but could it have escaped the Noble Lord, when
to
hurling his invectives against the Roman Catholic religion the Bill because the G l‘lellemnobtercfionirseßriir
Government did not know what they
in 'lreland, against those sacred ceremonies which its mem- had to do, or ,how to do it. The Noble Lord commenced
bees revered, when talking of the Synod of Thurles, that he the fray with the letter, from which any one not ac-
ted a Cabe in- Scotland much stronger than any he could quaiuted with the country would suppose
that some griev-
'have thought of in Ireland? What would the House say of ous injury was done. Teoe
within a week t was on the Ith of November,
excommunication in the orthodox . Episcopal Church of and
t. o that time, accompanied by the great
Scotland. There was, however,. a ,rem,arke.blecase of that 1 Officers o . State, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord
kind before the Courts of Scitlano • out in favour of the Chief Justice, astienibled at. the festive beard of
Synod and the establishment from Which it had emanated the chief magistrate.he of the city of London On
the Noble Lord was willing to insert provisions to exempt 1 the occasion f visit to which he had referred, five
,it from the operation of the Bill, which was aimed altogether i minutes after the !oving cup event round, speeches were de-
;with' sectarian bigotry • aeainet the Roman Catholics.— ! livered calculetei edi 'cord amongst. her jM, •-sty6
(Hear, hear.) • The Right Honourable Baronet this Home subjects. In the a jut len. which took place on this eiib•ec't
'Secretary once contradicted him for saying he had there had been thirty county meetings, which would silos;
received a petition signed by the bishops of the Episcopal ! a strong feeling on the subject. Some of these meetings
-Church of Scotland, bute if it were not. the petition of the i were very insignificant. One of them was held in York.
• episcopal bishops, it was a petition of the Society of Christian Special trains at half.price were engaged, and noblemen and
Know ledge. signed by thoseepiscopal bishops—( flair, bear)— 1 gentlemen announced to attend, hut although the meeting
:and that petition was received, although the Noble Lord said took place in a town with a population between thirty and
he would not receive a petition so signed by the Roman ! forty thousand people, not more than 2,50 a attended, and a
• 'Catholic. bishops of Ireland. But, he would read the terms great many of them were. Bernell Catholics. There was no
-.of the excommunication in the case in. Scotland to which he agreement displayed by the speakers at these meetings as to
'had referred :—" Wee William Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen ' the remedy for the injury, if there was one. From the
aforesaid, with our clergy in synod assembled, do hereby this ; smallest of the country practi; loners to the greatest of them
-.loth day of May, 1843, excommunicate the said Sir William there bad not been found the smallest thing that the
the Legia-
Dunbar, Bart., solemnly ram all faithful to hold no iattirecould act upon. Then there was the celebrated Dr.
communion with him in prayers or sacraments." Had that ' Cumming, who delivered a lecture at which Admiral Hare
eacaped the attention of the 'Noble Lord? Was Le aware of court presided. They made the'proposition that the Cardinal
'the existence of that excommunication when he proposed to ' -should beat once put on board ship andsent, out ofthe cou'.try.
introduce all exceptional clause fur Scotland in the Bill before j After three months' deliberation, they the speech of the

' Noble Lords Which was not very much the point: hi.
had now found out_ his difficulty, and he found that_ be 'could
not deal with the matter without throwing Ireland over-
board. The Noble Lord objected to the Synod of Thurles,
but the Protestant bishops and clergy had been as meddle-
some and troublesome, and more so, than the Catholics,
when they dared. Then the Synod of Thurles, had been'
equally divided upon the question, and that was more than
could be said of the Protestant bishops aud' clergy, upon
similar questions. When the Noble
.Lord made his .speech
he could not point out the particular sin of whiCh the. Pope
had been guilty, but had been obliged to resort to what law-
yers would call cumulative eVidenee, in support of his case.
rßut the real offence was,the-inipostation ul this bitll,.:yet be
-proposed to do nothing' tofprevent the introduitiOn of.an-:,
-other- bull. .1-18(11;lis 'Bright) admitted -that there had...been'
offensive language, hut ilia' henever found Fiesta WhosSid
not use, offensive language. The " language of "the Pope,'
offensive as it was, was rather a form than.a subitance,. and
was not a sufficient justification for the Legislature of Eng-
land to proceed to legislate up* -the enbject. "The supre-
macy of which the Noble Ltird spoke was a mere fiction, and
it was so from the time of James the Sewed. At the pre-
sent moment there was-no supremacy but that of the three
estates of the realm and of the law, and unless these late
proceedings had violated this, it was abs ',rd to say that there
had been any violation of the law. The making of bishops
by the only power that could make them was no violation of
the law, or invasion of the prerogatives of the Crown. The
Qu en did not pretend to make them. It was no ignoring of
the Protestant Church, because the Pope had 'always iguored
the Protestant Church of England, and he took precisely the
same view of that Church which that Church took of the
Dissenters in this country." _This __was what one church al-
ways did to another. He was no friend to bishops of Any
elass.—(Hear, hear.). A constituent of his had pointed out
that this"change was really an increase of independence in
respect of the people. Vicars apostolic were subject to the
arbitrary will of the Pope, and those extraordinary statutes
which he might please from time to time to enforce.
The change from vicars apoitolic to bishops in ordinary was
for the benefit of the Roman Catholics of this country.—
(Hear, hear.) The course taken by the Pope was calculated
to relieve the Roman Catholics from much of that ultrainon-
tane doctrine of which they had heard so much. The. Noble
Lord said thata.foreign power had attacked the independence
of this country; but the whole matter was one of sentiment.
He would admit that the language was insolent and offen-
sice, and he thanked the Noble Lord for not making this Bill
more offensive than it was. The question now was not a
question of Protestantism, but of politics. He would look
at it as such. And now who were the injured? • The Pope
and Cardinal Wiseman were unscathed. The true suf-
ferers were the Crown of England and the six or
seven millions of its Roman Catholic subjects. The
gulf which had formerly separated Ireland from this
country was this session made • wider than •it had
ever been before. This was an .evil of great mag-
nitude. The Noble Lord had adverted to the proceeding
at the Synod of Thurles as one of the reasons for bringing
forward this Bill. But at that synod one of the bishops
was in favour of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland; but the
Noble Lord's policy had united all the Roman Catholic
Bishops against these colleges. The missionary powers of
the Roman Catholic Church had taken hope from the present.
The Apostles put down paganism and established Christianity
by the influence of their preaching and teaching. Luther,
single-handed, wrested from the Church of Rome the power
which it possessed. There they had Church identified with
the State, and supported by vast temporalitie,s, aud yet 'they
were afraid that this Church would be overcome by the
Roman Catholic Church, which had no power here. The
Church in Ireland was in such a state that there was not a
man in the kingdom that would hold up his finger in sup-
port of it, and it only required' the Noble Lord to lift up his
finger against that Church in this House to have it swept
away.—(Hear.) Yet this was the Church which the-Noble
Lord said was inviolate. It seemed to be a question be-
tween the Bishop in St. James's-square against the Arch-
bishop in Goldenssquare. The Noble Lord said he had con-
sulted the- Lord Bishop of London on this Bill. He re-
gretted that this course had been pursued. He had seen
that the bishop at one meeting shed tears. It was rather
a curious sight to behold a bishop with 20,00 W. a year shed-
sling tears. It reminded him of a story told of a monk of
Cyprus, who could shed tears as natural as he could exhibit
perspiration, and who subsequently feigned madness to avoid
being made a bishop.—(Hear, hear-) The Noble Lord felt
he was in a quagmire. At least his colleagues did, and he
thought the better course would be for the Government to
withdraw the. Bill, rather than proceed with it. The truth
was. the Noble Lord was practising .a cheat upon the people
of. England. They wanted a Bill to put down what was
called Papal aggression, but the. Bill before the House was
not the .measure • that they desired.—( Hear, 11eac...) The
Hon. Member for Salford said that neither his Right Hon.
Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) nor himself represented the feel-
ings of- his constituents on this subject. This might
be so, and the time would come when that question could
be settledl but his Hon. Friend -had now obtained
the approval, of a rev. parson in his borough who had al-
ways opposed him, but who now thanked God that he was
represeuted by such a man. That Huuse was composed of
Six hundred and fifty-six Member& They were supposed to
be the foremost men in the country, and it was their duty
not to be the victim of a popular cry. It was their duty to
stem the cry rather than to be, led away by it. Losking at
England with her free press, her progress in industry and in
morals, she would be ever able to resist any aggression,
whether it came from Lambeth or from Rome. Ile was one
of a sect which bad invariably upheld the principles which he
had attempted to advocate—one of a sect that had suffered
for principles which the Noble Lord had said he introduced
this Bill to uphold, but he felt it to be his duty as a citizen
to raise his voice to withdraw it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SCULLY moved the adjournment of the debate, one
reason for which was, that the legal adviser of the Govern-
ment for Ireland bad not given his opinion on the subject.
Mr. LAWLESS seconded the anciendrrient.
The Honse then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion .. ... 54
Against it 365
Majority against the motion ...--311
An Host. MEMBER having moved that the House should
now adjourn.

Lord J. RUSSELL rose, and referring to the length of the
discusion which the subject had already undergone, said,
that in point of deliberation, they might very well be consi-
dered in Committee (Hear, hear.) After the 'divisions
which had already taken place, he was not disposedlo detain
the House by further divisions. • He would, therefore, pro-
pose the debate should be adjourned till Thursday next.—
(Loud cries of •‘Hear, hear.")

The debate was adjourned accordingly.
PROPERTY-TAX BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
third reading of this Bill.
AN: a tew words frOm ➢ir. COWAN, which were wholly
inaudible in consequence of the noise in the House,
Mr: lIERRIES expressed a hope that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer 'would not in the present state of the
fLuse press the third reading of the Bill. It appeared to
hint that the- Committee on the tax, which had been
agreed to, should be appointed before the Bill was read a
third time.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, understand-
ing that the Bill was only to be passed for one year, consi-
dered that there could be no objection to its being read a third
time. Pile appointment of the Committee was wholly inde-
pendent of the passing of the present Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass►
Mr, HERRIES inquired when the Committee was likely
to ba appointed?.

The CHANCELLOR of the EYCHEQUER could not say
until he ascertained what lion. Members were willing to
serve on the committee. He was in communication with
several gentlemen with a view of obtaining their services,
but two or three gentlemen, who he, had hoped would have
served, had declined to.do so. He had no,doubt that in a
day or.two he would be able to lay a list of the Committee
on the table.

In reply to Colonel SIBTHORP. .
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be bad
before stated that the claims of ,parties assessed under
Schedule •11 would be fairly brought under the consideration
of the Corntnittee. . , .

The Bill was then passed.
The. Apprentices to Sea service (Ireland) Bill.was,read a
second time.
The repOrt on the resolutions relating to conferences with
the Lords was considered and agreed to.
TL-IE WOODS AND FORESTS.
Lord SEYMOUR moved for, leave to bring in a Bill to
make better provision for the management of the woods,
forests, and land revenues of the Crown. and for the direc-
tion of public works and buildings. The measure was, he
observed, the same in its general features as the Bill of last
year, though there were some alterations is the details.
Lord DUNCAN hoped the , Noble Lord would afford an
opportunity for discussing the measure on an early. day. A
Bill of the same kind was introduced, last year, but it was
thrown over to the end a the session, at:d was never dis-
cussed.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE suggested that the Government should
take the discussion on the principle of the measure upon the
second reading. ,
Lord SEYMOUR would state when he;brought in the
Bill upon what day the second aeading would take place.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
PETITION OF REV. PIERCE CONELLY.

The Earl ot. ARUN DEL and SURREY Moved —" That the
order of the House (Nlay 1), that the petition of the'Rev:.
Pi:rce Conelly b 3 printed for the use of members only, be
read;for the purpose of being discharged."
Ur STAFFORD said, the circumstances of this case were
somewhat peculiar. .. It had b rmn decided by the ;Printing
Committee that the petition which the Ni•.ble Lord's reso-
lution referred should no; be 'Hinted in the ordinary way, so
as to be accessible to the public, ami therefore it had been
printed for the uses of Members only. The allegations of
the petition were so extraordinary, and affcted so many
parsons, and the circumstances of. the case were likely to
attract so much public attention at this time, that without
in the least w6hitig to prejudice . the case on the one side or
the other, be hoped the House would not be led, by..assenting
to tue resolution, into the publication of a series of persona-
lities. - • •

The Earl of ARUNDEL. ,and SURREY said that it was
the excitement prevailing at the present moment which, in-
duced him to take notice of this petitioa;' wider ordinary
circumstances he would not have done so. He happened to
enter the Committee on Public Petitions at the time that
petition was widtef consideration, and when it, had been pm-
posed that it should be printed for the use of Members only.
He moved, that it should be printed and published. in the
usual way, but his motion was negatived. He . disliked
the halt publicity which had been given to the petition,
and demanded from the justice of the House that full pub.!.
licity should be given to it, in order that be might „obtain
information which would enable him to disprove its allee
gations.
Mr. T HORNKLY said,.that after much consideration•the
Petitions Committee resolved to print the petition for the use
of Members, because it referred to an unimportant question,
respecting which a Member had introduced a Bill to. the
House; but they refrained from printing it for general
culation because it contained imputations of a serious nature
on t he character of individuals.
' • 1
Sir R. INGLIS apprehended that if,the petition was
printed for general circulation the Reuse would be involved
in ante her Stoekdale and lii.,sard or [lowan! case.
. Mr. ANSTEV remi• ded the Hon. Baronet that hype
proeisiona at the Bill passed a few years ago no actionjer
libel could 11,! brought on account. of anything containeckin,a
piper published by orde of the House. All the factS stated
in the petition had been given in evidence before the
siast kid Court.
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND had known the petitioner
for two years, and had seen all the documents quotati in the
petition.
Mr. G. BEREELEY and Mr. KEOGH supported the,ntotion.
Sir G. GREY th ught, that it' the petition was such as it
was -epresented to be, the Committee bad exercised ?a smnd
diScretion in printing it for time use of
,Members only..
Mr. AGLIONBY thought it absurd to attribute.secr(Ty
to anything which had been circulated among .upwards of
600 persons. Most of the
,petitions. would fintl4tbeir way
into .the waste-basket, and then they would go—twona knew
where.—(A larch )
Mr.- HENLEY said, if the bled of the Noble Lord was
to refute the statements co ,mined in the petition, there
WAS nothiag to prevent hiIII rout repeating them to par-