The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-18 00:00:00

Ti4'1414 lead to results which they might have to deplore.
"e Bill
t,ta„, was nothing but a decoction of the existing Pre-
issui:‘ intolerance in this country, and if they persisted in
by he it, it would be looked upon as a declaration of war
krekeoile of Ireland.—(Hear.)
tieten;aPEYBIOUR wished to state why he had come to the
ttit,sti illation of voting against the Government on this
If the?,n• He was aware of the almost superhuman efforts
thi, "Man Ca, holies to sp sad their religion, not only in
letiotteeentry but throughout Europe. He drew some conse-
tass„.f,rem that fact, because he did not think any adequate
447 had yet been taken to resist them. The present crisis
1014°Iteellne upon, him unexpectedly, for he had been told by
bkt be ell
Catholic friends ten years ago that meetings
tero7eil held in the principal cities of Europe for the con•
lash s' of this country, and for the establishment of some
Ibis cistern as that which it was now attempted to begin in
Nee thilatrY. He was aware that in many quarters in Eu-
V4lholiere had been a regular crusade of one class of Roman
tiess 5 against Protestants. That class, he believed. con-
Rletc:2!
.those Roman Catholics who were in favour of civil
eligions tyranny, and he believed, if they were victori-
Plats TY would turn their arms against the Whig
10eals le the English Church. He should admi ,
is 7. that having seen a good deal of that party
Ihtleariss °es portions of Europe, there were amongst
tee ...`"any who would be as unscrupulous in their means—
they's despotic in the exercise of their spiritual power, as
ore irre in the reign of Philip 11., the time of the Jesuits,
(441,,e the latter established themselves in Paraguay.—
do? 4sear,) But what was it the House now proposers to
lei a hat was the course it intended pursuing, or what
tett',:te exigency to be met? He did not agree with the
tlo, ""e4e them, because it did that which it ought not to
li it
e left other matters untouched ,to which it ought to
ketab:ttended.—(" Hear, hear," from the Roman Catholic
toile/ re. •) He maintained that a bishop was not a terri-
veuiltle ; it was merely an office, as old as the Roman
totele religion itself. The present question was one
•(trY distinct and different from monastic establishments.
,lislitiert hear.) He therefore thought it would be a
44%21 of civil and religious liberty to interfere with those
it hut at the same time considered that measures
play he taken to inquire into the management of those
Ihi;:ie establishments. Everybody should deplore that
tole: which for the last 200 years existed on the continent,
of 'which a young female was either compelled to marry
gel
of veil, and through the means of which the higher
,eser„ui, society had become so debased and disorganised
lth,l4tel not have trespassed at all on the House, but he
tDtsi;jella briefly to state the reasons which induced him
tre,„'sagainet those with whom he generally acted, and in
li_aer which might endanger his seat for the borough he
rented.....( Hear, hear.)
the li 401.TIBILJRN said he was glad he had given way to
ttrt,'?e. Gentleman who had just addressed them, as he was
Vat Hon. Member had shown that in any future vote
!lie ~.._he might give he would be influenced by the best
'rote'"ust honourable motives. In much of what had fallen
4tittehe, Hon. Gentleman he (Mr. Goulburn) concurred ;
Neshould differ from him in the vote which he gave
that occasion.—(Hear.) He thought the statement
ikeZere was a general crusade gotten up to advance the
lof the Roman Catholic religion was not a very
itergument in favour of not passing a measure to arrest
eutt some restraint upon the temporal power claimed
ttilixtr
Pope in this country.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon.
ttleN for Cork (Mr. Roche) had talked a good deal about
Ilg the university privilege of printing the Book of
en Prayer ; but as it was, he (Mr Goulburn) found it
, bY impossible to connect the greater part of the Hon.
beS.,,i r"„e speech with the subject immediately under discus-
,lll%,,,lear, hear.) He would not therefore endeavour to
4,,,,iat Hon. Member, but would merely briefly state
`q 07,,_"ends why he could not agree with the Hon. Member
hot, pning the Bill then before the House. It was said the
‘tre.„_ Bill was an invasion of the Act of 1829. With
IN .irnatir,n he could not concur. If he regarded the pre-
!trit4,ll as an invasion of that Act he would not give it his
kifl•„"`(Hear, hear.) He had been a party to the form-
a a that compact between the Roman Catholic body
k:::e people of this country, and he would neither de-
tro • • •
el its provisions, nor consent to its spirit being vios
bit ,sitL, .(bear, hear)—but he contended for it that that was
Wien of that compact on the part of those who 5up-
...446°1e provisions of that Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The
Atjt,l' °Ube Hon. Member for Cork, he conceived, were
,S4ified, for it was not pretended now to increase the
LI 4 of Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland, nor were
slt el titles there prohibited which were not so under
p„ft of 1829. The Honourable Gentleman, therefore,
iitljacting fairly towards his Roman Catholic fellow-
'ple-J'e en if he assumed that they would not support
he of 1819.—(Hear, hear.) The act of the
,"e contended for it, was an aggressive act. The
I,litet, Ca belie Church endeavoured to extend its doc-
tlt 1."7 teaching; the Church of England did the same.
'Ns '" own art he had no objection to the contest, and no
t4erfcp
.11._, the result—no dread of any aggression, as long as
had a sufficiency of such teachers as they had for their
'4t'ii, tie ---(llear, hear.) Bat he held the act of the Pope to
act of civil aggression. It invade& the authority of
~:wa 33, the appointment t f
.cit.sil titles, country was as ,
;!I „neto invade the Protestant privileges of the at
tTittli7 time. It was on these grounds that he objected
4:ele
et of the Pope.—(Hear, hear.) If it had been found i
,i ecclesiastical arrangements made in this country
Ntetts tretifficient for the management of their affiers, a
me might have bee i found without intr ducing a civil ,
41tt te e,disturb the peace of the country and interfere with
NI" government.—(Hear, hear.) When was there a
duduring which a greater disposition had been shown
e,S eet,,r'eg the past year, on the part of that House and 1
V% "trY, to give the Roman Catholics every possible 1
IN? Re, and withdraw all disabilities inflicted by former
Sid--and the only reward which they received for all that !
41 meration was an invasion of the authority of the Crown, I
1; qtthjelufringement of the Constitution. The appointment '
lot
°f the
was not necessary to the exercise of the re- I
I,:iiille Li the Roman Catholics. If it were so, he for one 1
tit-",ready to make great sacrifices to give them the full I
l,m for
episcopal superintendence.—( Hear.) He remem- ,
ttlttii9l- 20 years hearing every possible narrative of Roman i
kts Ie grievances laid before that House up to the year 1
kste'rti but though every possible grievance which could be '
I:sted ea existing in this or any other country had been I
h' Out a syllable had ever been uttered alleging that the 1
h~,„'aPogolic of England were not amply sufficient for 1
leci_ religious want which they then hail.— (Hear.) Ile '
INZ'abered even a rescript from the Pope at the time they i
ke:_thscussing, about the year 1812 or 1813, how emanci- 4
''‘, !night be safely granted, having issued. in which,
11/41*441{, }:1, affirming the ss stem of bishops in Ireland, there was '
Wien made only for the appointment of vicars-apostolic
'lik,a4 country. If therefore that measure had been unpro- t
stn—sif it had been unnecessary for the establishment of 1
It Roman Catholic religion, why had it been introduced? I
'`p, asked, where was the evil in exchanging vicariates- I
n'ttii"Le for dioceses? It might be quite immaterial indeed
NtP 40trian Catholics, but it was most material indeed to '
lak,Fotestant community.—(Hear, hear.) The vicars-apos-
til l 4edeed, had jurisdiction, as his Hon. and Learned Friend i
tttili,teinber for Plymoth had told them, over personas omnes
lie pswes all persons of their own persuasion. But would i
t4vter""etended that the regular bishops would not exercise 1
ON . over those who were not Roman Catholics? The 1
lap ladeed, had told them in his bull that he had proceeded I
katillt non sine tnagna viscerum commotione, indeed— ,
irr ter) those persons to superintend the ecclesiastical -
!lliet of the Church ; but they would be found interfering in 4
Ntrklatters also. Ir, had been said that the Pope had no
Ztiop 0 enforce the canon law in this country; but the
tikt Maw might still have its effect without the interference t
fps'... be'vilßower as in the case, for instance, of excommu-
1040-; Was it, not possible t'o. make such a sentence a I
kibtkir annoyance, and inconvenience, and injury to those I
it had been applied?—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. 1
Ott. for Plymouth said if it was proposed to excommu-
qibe Queen, that he would at once interfere; but the ,
bZteltie of the case was the same if the lowest subject in I,
-ete,4ll were subjected to such a proceeding. This ap-
'lS-Lent of bishops, therefore, gave them a province over
LI Set7rsons in their diocese than Roman Catholics ; and as
c not prepared to submit to the consequences of such '
'etkise. The Gentleman who preceded him stated ob-
IN to some parts of the Bill; these objections, however,
TA, better discussed in Committee. But with respect
'et, %Manner in which that aggression had been met, he
h,Nrs, °Whore) confessed he did not approve of the whule
"it I)lproceeding which had taken place. He thought that
s,z9deration on the part of the Government, and a less
ilt, 1 I°4 to aggravate the feelings of the country, would
1;414 4eted to a more calm and deliberate discussion than
N 11 the consequence of the course pursued—(Hear,
Ne - sod he could not help considering that
tkeit:iaerepancy between the Act introduced, and the
N le,_ent caused by the Government would be likely to
tie t„''' prejudicial results.—(Hear, hear.) What was
ellt ire left for them to pursue? Were they to reject
lea V
_1 or to adopt it? If they rejected it, what better
ZeetitNlcl they a prospect of of resisting the aggression, or
?s e,1:48 a specific declaration that the act of the Pope was
t etii the they should remonstrate against ? —(Hear, hear.)
k ~"le Pope acted under the influence of better advisers
~441Z,'"•'etilel. persevere. But he might if he pleased recall the
% he trusted, when the Roman Catholic feeling of
44 euntrY was consulted, it would be found advisable to do
B,here was no necessity to look for precedents for such a
4iti "le leg He recollected an instance of a bishop to whom
I,44"eonarCh objected being charged by the Pope. And it
tqh (3nlY the other day that they. saw the bishop appointed
+4 ea withdrawn, and the vicar-apostolic re-appointed.
thii therefore again said, " Withdraw your bull ; restore
111,_• vicars-apostolic, and then all the restriction of
)04 Bill become unnecessary,"— (Hear, hear.) They
litle 4, told the proposed measure was adverse to civil
tet'LLY, and that it was a persecution of the Roman
ea, ts'iices The Honourable Member for Cork had told them
%Co sanction the appointment of vicars-apostolic instead of
tlie,sps- He had talked a great deal about toleration and
tieCotY, and yet he would sweep away the entire Irish Church
Net Ps, and all as a proof of his moderate and liberal Oh.
he (Rear, hear.) A distinguished lady had said, " Oh,
lthil, 1 under thy name many crimes are committed?" And
ekiltd much the same way, he believed, with what was
iltiErs religious as with civil liberty. In Ireland certain sees
, at peetablished in different districts, and bishops appoisted
the,ege law told. them they should not assume the titles of
;sssa;'ees, and the present Bill was no more an act of op-
Iterir than the Act of 1829. But there was a sort of ,
kyle" besides that of legislation. It was that which an
%let
~`°lls insolent priest inflicted upon a man of pious and
eititit"elneanour, and who would submit to any injury and
!xpszli rather than make any complaint which would lead to
A ; Ilre• Against such a man they often saw, in private
ituf Aluriee inflicted which would bear the name of tyranny
end. We should not, however, allow the Pope to go on
P,,lip7„ hillg_on our kind feelings towards the Roman Catholic
N",'1,7 He held the est of the Pope to be an encroachment
let ,c`e,e sovereign power of the Queen, the Protestant feel-
:est: the country, and the Established Church, and there-
le I 2 Would vote in favour of the present Bill, which went
1367,,,t it.—(Hear, hear.)
t`titt- W. W. BARRON expressed his apprehension that all
mad i• 'l4 weeks' distracting discussion on the Papal bull
issee as little tended to useful legislation on the question
Itiliit"ttsil Edgworth's Essay on Irish Bulls" had tended to
(Lau °e the breed of cattle in the county of Galway.
of 14.guter. ) On the contrary, it had done an immense deal
telslchief. It had raised up all the dormant embers of
eatilq,°l4 discord in this country and in Ireland; it had torn
tria'ov ties, and ripped up old sores ; it had set man against
t'et„ where religious feuds had been settled down, though
quiteitiee extinguished, when men were beginning to think
obeli clatters laid on the tomb for ever. end that never
Ohtt:cl be seen in our days a revival of the old disputes
the
tke "1:' Catholic question, or that that House should be made
reile of ecclesiastical censures or intolerant accusationsi
Car, hear.) What kind of a church was it they had,
1
epeefeared w
ared the appointment of a single archbishop would
ets 4? Oh I but the effect of the Pope's act
Clit'Lllethrone the Queen, to annihilate the Established
ti use. and take possession of all ecclesiastical temporali-
tlikh, It was truly absurd to send forth such stories for the
et; /letting of old women as the renewal of Smithfield and,
4,lspeia!tholomew as the consequences of Dr. Wiseman 's
thesetltceent in this country. Now, when they talked of
t 0 s;things, did they think that all the horrors were on the
Vie ''se?—(" Hear," from the Roman Catholic Members.)
kat head
wish to rake up the horrors of Henry VIII., the
Uti tk ea(' of their Church?—(Hear.) Did they wish to rake
th% nhorrore perpetrated by John Knox in Scotland, or
'444M91111 murders and burniop of Cromwell in Ireland?

—(Hear, hear.) Did they wish their representatives to tell
the Irish people that such were the Protestants of the pre-
sent day, and that they were fit prototypes of Henry VIII.,
John Knox, and Cromwell?—(Hear. There were two sides
to all those cases of persecution —put them down net to the
score of Catholic or Protestant, but to that of corrupt human
nature. But it had been said that the appointment of a
Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country was an insult to
the British people. For his part, however, he could not un-
derstand how thot act could be regarded as an insult or an
aggression ; and he certainly felt convinced that it had never
been meant for such a purpose. Within the last few years a
Roman Catholic bishop had been appointed in Ireland with-
out any offence to the Protestant party throughout the
empire; and surely an act which was perfectly harmless in
Ireland afforded no just ground fcr public indignation in
England. Why, the Protestant party in this country ought,
consistently with their own h tired of Papal ascendancy, to
approve of an act which raised the Roman Catholic vicars-
apostolic into bishops, and by that means rendeed
them less dependent on the Pope. The Honourable
Gentleman the Member for the Univesity of Cambridge
(Mr. Goulburn), had talked that evening of the debasement
and misery which the profession of the Roman Catholie
religion produced among nations. Now, in reply to that
aspersion, he (Sir W. Barron) would confidently point to
the history of the glories of Italy, and the imperishable
monuments of the genius of her children. He
would point to the great men who had contri-
buted to raise France to her high pitch of prosperity and
civilization. He would point, to , to the distinguished
men who had illustrated the annals ef England herself in
former ages. The Act then under their consideration was a
paltry, contemptible measure, good for nothing but insul
If it were passed into law its effects in Ireland would be
peculiarly disastrous. There would be no civil war in con-
sequence in that country, but there would be distrust and
hatred of English legislation. He would tell them that it
world be an impotent law, and worse than impotent -it
would be a disgrace to their statute-book. It would be an
insult to the Church of the Irish people, and upon that point
they were far more tenacious than they were of their lives
or properties. It would do her Majesty's Ministers no good,
but would inlict a stain on their name and throw difficulties
in the way. of their party which centuries would not re-
move. He implored of them, therefore, to pause before they
determined on persevering with so pernicious and insulting
a measure.
Mr. CALVERT (the new Member for Aylesbury) said
that he had never entered upon the consideration of any sub-
ject which was, to his view, more pregnant with the most
important consequences to all the great interests of the
country than the measure now under discussion. The sup-
porters of the Bill were told that they were guilty of perse-
cution and of retrograde conduct with reference to the
Emancipation Act of 1829. Now, so far as persecution was
concerned, no man could feel a deeper interest than ha did
in the welfare and progress of Ireland, and his feeling with
regard to the Roman Catholics of England was that no body
of persons were more loyal, or more deserved the attention
and consideration of the Legislature. It was with a
sincere anxiety, therefore, to do justice to the Reman
Catholics on both sides of the channel that he n.w
approached this subject. The Act of 1e29 was simply for
the purpose of establishing civil privileges. It was t -
tally unconnected with the subject under discussion; and,
with the exception of one particular clause, there was not,
from the commencement to the conclusion of it, any refer-
ence to matters of a spiritual character, and by that clause a
penalty was laid upon those Roman Catholic bishops who
took the titles of then existing sees. It was said, however,
that this did not prevent the assumption of titles of sees de-
rived from other places ; but, up to the last four yeare, the
parties who took such titles under a Papal brief were guilty
of treason. Since that period the penalty had been taken
away, but the offence remained. When the opponents of the
Bill spoke of persecution, let him ask who were the parties
who had compelled the Government to enter upon this course
of legislation? In the first place, he found a person coming
to this country with authority from a foreign power, assert-
ing a spiritual jurisdiction over him (Mr. Calvert.)—(Cries
of " Hear," and " No," from several Irish Members). He
could prove to them " yes"— a spiritual jurisdiction over him.
_(Cheers.) There was a man setting up a cardinal's throne
in the neighbourhood of Lambeth, under the authority of a
foreign potentate, and because he (Mr. Calvert) resisted the
act, was he to be told that he was guilty of persecution ? Why,
the charge was absurd, and inconsistent with the meaning of
the language— and he contended that h' was then standing in
a position of self-defence, and was not amenable to any such
charge. The question before the House was, whether or not
it was exped ent that the present Bill should be read a
second time? For 160 years, from 1710 to this time, the
question bad been decided in one uniform manner by the
Legislature, every Act, beginning with the :.th of Anne,
chap. 8, sec. 10, having uniformly adopted a phrase which
drew a distinction between the authority of a Ro-
man Catholic over a congregation, and his authority
over a place. The question might also be viewed with
reference to the general law of Europe; for, throughout
the whole of Europe, wherever Roman Catholic bishops
had been admitted at all , they had always been subject to
some control—by placet or elequditur —which prevented
them from exercising the same authority that they had in
Rome. The most important effect of the recent act of ag-
gression by the Pope would be the introduction of the
canon law. T, introduce that, they were told there must
be a regular series of archbishops aud bishops in the
country, the act being that unless there were arch-
bishops and bishops to introduce and give effect to it, that
law could not take practical effect. Let the House see the
result of that. Take the establishment of the new col-
leges in Ireland as an example. Suppose the Pope issued a
brief condemning these colleges, and no episcopate existed in
Ireland, it would then be a mere matter of conscience with
every Roman Catholic_to decide whether he would obey the
brief or not; but if an episcopate were established, then, by
virtue of the canon law, every individual Roman Catholic ia
the country must bend before the brief. Not a man cull,'
resist it. Liberty would be put an end to, and all must bow
to the decision of the Pope. There had been much debating
upon the subject of the Bill ; but had any Roman Catholic
Member yet pointed out a single spiritual want of the Reman
Catholics which was not satisfied under the institution of
vicars apostolic? He (Mr. Calvert) did not want to deprive
the Roman Catholics of a single spiritual benefit; but he
must say he believed the vicars apostolic wore able to supply
all the spiritual wants of that community in this country.
The Hon. Member then remarked upon the insulting charac-
ter of the act of the Pope in issuing his brief without first
consulting the wishes of the country and the Government,
and in using the term " Catholic England" in his brief,
when he knew that it was not "Catholic" but " Protestant'
England ; for if it were "Catholic England," why were not the
Stuarts upon the throne? (Cheers.) In point of fact the Pope
in using that phrase was conveying an intimation that the
present Sovereign ought not to be upon the throne. Anot :er
reason why the present Bill was necessary was, the constant
tendency of Rome to encroach up in the authority of the
Crown, as might be seen on reference to Belgium, Sardinia,
and other continental states. In the course of this debate
it had been asserted that the Roman Catholic bishops were
appointed in this country because they had been appointed
in Ireland. Thus encroachment followed encroachment, and
the only thing they gained by making a concession was
that that concession was deelared to be a right, and
the right was then taken as the groundwork for further
encroachment. His Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr.
Roundell Palmer) had referred to the Protestant Dissenting
communities, and said that if they were allowed
free action it must also be allowed to the Roman Catholics.
But let the House observe the difference. In the first place)
there was no persuasion or body of persons in this country
who, by any religious arrangement, questioned in any way
the order or establishment of bishops, and no one in which
the temporal power had not great weight over the
spiritual. - (Cheers.) That was a most material matter. Let
the conferences or assemblies of any of them be examined,
and it would always be found that the temporal was above
the spiritual ; whereas the essence of the system of the Roman
Catholic Church was, that the temporal should not exist
except in obedience to the spiritual ; and in his (Mr. Cal-
vert's) opinion nothing should induce us to consent that the
temporal power should be subject altogether to the spiritual.
—(Hear, hear.) In point of fact, the Pope of Rome was
the supreme head of a vast army of bishops and priests
scattered all over Europe, who must therefore be regarded
with jealousy, and it should be remembered that every mem-
ber of the Methodist Conference, or of an assembly of Non-
conformist divine., was an Englishman, and that whatever
else might be his object, that object could not be for the ad-
vantage of the stranger.—(Hear, hear.) How was it with
regard to the Pope ? He was not only Pope of
Rome, but there might be other foreign powers
who had influence over him.—(Hear, hear.) At this
mere ent the French had possession of Rome, and he (Mr.
Calvert) did not believe that they entertained sinister feel-
ings towards this country ; but he could easily imagine ano-
ther great continental power, which having possession of the
Popedom, and with a bold and scrupulous minister, who en-
tertained hostile views towards the Constitution and the
power of England, might use that influence for the purpose
of inflicting immense damage upon embarrassing an
authority which it knew would be ever use for the purpose
a small measure, and he
of promoting constitutional government It d hut been stated
think that, therefore, it
that
u hh
et
i pe
rwe s sn so; o Bill;
Was a pleasure which ought not to be passed. It might be
b uwt ahs
e, after
did
na 101
t,
necessary, however, to have recourse to further legislation :
but even if that were so, he should not be sorry that they had
thus afforded a locus penitentice, and given the Pope an op-
portunity to withdraw his brief, retrace his steps, and avoid
the enormous evils which his conduct was calculated to pro-
duce.—(Cheers.)
Mr. CHARTER'S said he bad been much struck with the
strange logic of the supporters of the Bill, and the inconsis-
teacy
between their arguments and their votes. They said,
" We give our votes upon the ground of civil and religious
liberty. We vote for complete toleration; and because we
dread the establishment of a hierarchy in this country, and
the ntroduction of she canon law, we vote for a Bir which
touches not one of these points." Therefore, he was at a
loss to understand how they could reconcile their
speeches with their votes. From all that had occurred,
both within and without the walls of Parliament, it
appeared that the act of the Pope had been re-
garded solely in the light of a temporal aggression
It was considered to be not an act for the better internal
government of the Roman Catholic communion in this
country, but an assumption of temporal power by the Sove-
reign of the Roman States. That was the view taken by
her Majesty in the Speech from the Throne, by the Noble
Lord in introducing the Bill, and by the Right Hon. Baronet
in proposing the amended Bill, and they stated that there
being no redress afforded by the statute law, they had come
to Parliament for further powers. But if it were true
that an insult had been offered to the Sovereign of the
realm, it was not to Parliament that they should have had
recourse for redress, but to the public law of Europe.
The lion. and Learned Member for Oxford (Mr. P. Wood)
had maintained that the sovereignty of the realm had been
violated by this so-called Papal aggression. 'l'he Hon. and
Learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), in every
word of whose able speech he (Mr. Charteris) fully agreed,
was of opinion that the right in the matter was dependent
not upon the Sovereign of the State, but on certain condi-
tions previously agreed upon—upon a concordat, for the es_
tablishmeat or partial establishment r f the Roman Ca-
tholic Church in the etate. Thus it appeared doctors dif-
fered. Dr. Twiss stated there was no position in law so
completely established with reference to the relations be-
tween the Pope and the Sovereigns of other States, as that
the Royal placer or erequatur of the Crown was previously
necessary to the appointment of bishoprics in a country.
That opinion was corroborated by the proceedings before
the Committee of 1815, where it was stated, by e German
jurist, that the Royal places was previously . necessary; lie
(Mr. Charteris) was inclined to concur in that opinion.
He thought it would be found that that right had teen
exercised by Sovereign Princes before and since the Re-
formation, and, if that were so, it was not to the House of
Commons, bus to the Foreign-office, they should look for
redress. But it was for them to consider whether it was
not their own fault that they were now discussing
this question—whether that spirit of intolerance which at-
tributed the famine in Ireland and the cholera to their
having whitewashed the walls of Maynooth, was not at the
bottom of the matter ; for he felt confident that had there
been an English Minister at Rome they would not now be
discussing this question. He could not, however, bring
himself to view the matter in the light of a temporal aggres-
sion. He considered it purely a ministerial question. The
episcopal appointments by the Pope lie regarded merely as

an arrangement for the better organization of the Roman
Catholic Church in this country, and as such they should not
deal with it, if they meant to preserve religious liberty and
toleration. What right had they to deny to the Roman
Catholics that organization for their Church government ac-
cording to laws of their own communion, which they granted
to every other religious community? Was not epis-
copacy a part of ecclesiastical government ? Nay, was
not the" episcopacy of the Church of England derived
from them ? The reason assigned was, the danger
that might ensue from the establishment of a Ro-
man Catholic hierarchy. He saw no danger on the
subject. If the canon law came into collision with the law
of the land, the canon law must bow before it. If they
found the canon law made superior to the civil and statute
law, then let them interfere by legislation and vindicate the
supremacy of the law, and he would give them his support.
The Roman Catholics of this country themselves denied the
temporal supremacy of the Pope, an 1 they swore in their
oath at that table that the Pope neither had nor ought to
have any civil jurisdiction within these realms, and further,
that they would not distu,b the settlement of property as
established. by law within the realm, and that they swore
in the terms of the oath, without mental reservation or equi-
vocation. Why then should they impugn the loyalty of the
Roman Catholics? He was indignant when he heard their
loyalty questioned. They bad proved their loyalty in a
hundred fights by flood and field, and in every clime. To
whom was the suppression of the Irish rebellion due but to
the priests and to the police. The Roman Catholics were
, as loyal to the Constitution and the Crown as the Pro-
testants, and he believed there was in the Roman Catho-
lic Anglo-Saxons, as well as in the Protestants, the same
spirit of independence which would not suffer them to
bow down to any foreign potentate. He was opposed to
all legislation, because he believed their civil rights and
liberties were in no danger. Ile looked not to penal enact-
ments, but, to the spread of education and enlighten-
ment and the exertions of their clergy for the pre-
servation
of their faith. A distinguished statesman (Mr.
Wyndham) had said that if conversion to Popery was au
evil, the law was not the proper remedy, and that prosely-
tism was a disgrace only to the clergymen in whose parish
it occurred. When Hon. Gentlemen threatened them with
the chance of another Spanish Armada or French invasion,
he asked was not the period of the Armada one when the
bloody penal code disgraced the statnto-book, when the
scaffold reeked with blood; and when the French invader
last trod the soil of this realm, was not the same penal code
still in force? They had little encouragement, then, in the
past to have recourse to penal enactments. They ought not,
however, to pass by the arrogant tone of the Popish brief;
they should pass a resolution marking their disapprobation
of it, but they ought at the same time to do away with the
absurdity of ignoring the Pope as a temporal Sovereign ;
they should establish diplomatic relations with his court;
they should reverse the statutes of mortmain, and guard
against abuses by passing measures for the inspection of
monasteries. This would be better than passing an Act
which would be a dead letter in operation. Although the
feeling of the country was aroused on the subject he was
certain the people would soon be convinced of the impolicy
of encumbering the statute-book with inoperative laws. For
if they would make their legislation effective, they must re-
enact the penal laws, but in that case they must interfere
with the free exercise of their religion by the Roman Ca-
tholics, and thus violate the sound principles of religious
toleration.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the pith and substance
of the arguments advanced by those who took what he
would cad the Roman Catholic view of the question was
this :—that the establishment of a hierarchy was essential to
ti eir religion— that therefore they were entitled to have it
—that they could obtain it only from the Roman Pontiff—
that therefore they were justified in having recourse to the
Pope to obtain it—and that the Pope was entitled to grant
it, and do all that was necessary for the purpose of establish-
ing it. From those premises the Roman Catholics drew an
egregious fallacy & but before proceeding to deal with that
he would state the substance of the arguments used by mem-
bers of the Protestant communion, who were opposed to
legislation on this subject. The substance of their argu-
ment was this :—that the Legislature had conceded to the
Roman Catholics the free and unfettered exercise of their re-
ligion—that the establishment of a hierarchy was essential
bo the free and unlettered exercise of their religion—and that
therefore we were bound to permit the establishment of their
hierarchy. Was it passible for any one to reflect for a
moment, and not see the fallacy which pervaded that ar-
gument? It did not follow that, because the thing desired
might be reasonable and just, the means taken to accomplish
it must necessarily be valid. He would assume, for the pur-
pose of argument (and he pledged himself to give battle to
all the argumentswhich had been advanced by the opponents
of the Bill, and he believed he would be able to defeat
them), that an organized hierarchy was essential to
the interests of the Roman Catholic religion, and that the
see of Routs wan the only quarter whence it could be
obtained ; but if the means adopted to establish the hierarchy
were illegal and unconstitutional —if they involved a
violation of our municipal and constitutional laws—
if they were a violation of the public law of Europe —if they
were an invasion of the sovereignty of the state—if they
were an outrage of the national independence—was it to be
said that the Government and'Parliament of the country,
whose bounden duty it was to preserve the sovereignty of
these realms inviolate, to protect the national independence
and maintain the national honour untarnished, were to sub-
mit to the adoption of those means because some persons
thought the Roman Catholic Church would be better go-
verned by archbishops and b shops than by vicars-apostolic?
He for r ne would never concede so monstrous and untenable
a proposition.—(Hear, hear.) He wanted an answer to this
question, had the Roman Pontiff, in partitioning the realm
of England into provinces and dioceses, and establishing
therein archbishops and bishops, and an organised hierarchy
for the government thereof, invaded the prerogative of the
Crown and outraged the independence of the country,
and had those subjects of her Majesty who had lent them-
•elves to carrying out this scheme, stood by it, and abetted
it, departed from the undivided allegiance which they owed
their Sovereign, violated the law of the land, and infringed
the spirit of the Constitution?—(NO, no, and bear,
hear.) He hoped that Honourable Members would be kind
enough to listen to his arguments instead of interrupting
him with unseemly jeers. There had been abundance of de-
clamation and invective, the promoters of the Bill had been
reproached with intolerance and persecution, and, indeed, if
it had been the object of the measure to re-enact the penal
laws, and suppress the Roman Catholic religion altogether,
it could not have been more vehemently condemned ; but he
now called upon the opponents of the Bill to meet him fairly
in argument, and he respectfully though fearlessly challenged
an answer to the question —were the proceedings of the See
of Rome, and of those who abetted him, consistent with the
law of this country, and with the law of nations? There was
another question he would ask—when the Roman Catholic
religion was the established religi n of this country, and
when, therefore, the people owed, and paid obedience to the
otjwbpaofuunhrrasouii
Pope of Rome, in spiritual matters, as the head of their
hurch,would te Pope then have taken on himself to do as he
had now done? To that question he would himself answer in
the most unhesitating and unqualified manner " no ;" and no
man would be bold enough to stand up in the House or else-
where, and assert the affirmative. From the earliest periods
of our his ory the Pope had never exercised jurisdiction in this
country with respect to the appointment of bishops. In the
time of the Saxons the power of dividing the country into
dioceses was vested exclusively in the King. Edward the
Confessor, finding the two bishops existing in his reign in-
sufficient for the spiritual wants of the people, created three
more, without the authority of the Pope. This was the
course always pursued in the earlier part of our history, nor
was it until the time of Henry I. that the slightest attempt
was made on the part of the see of Rome to encroach on the
power of the English Crown with respect to the appoint-
ment ef Bishops. They were elected by the clergy and con-
firmed by the Crown. An able pamphlet, written by Mr.
Edward James, of the Chancery bar, pointed out very clearly
the course of legislation which had been adopted for the ex-
press purpose of resisting the pretensions advanced by the
Pope, from time to time. to interfere with the prerogative
of the Crown in this country. Lllere the Hon. and Leaned
Gentleman read an extract from the pamphlet in question.]
The state of things to which he had referred was not
peculiar to England alone. On the contrary, the practice
in every Roman Catholic country in Europe before the Re-
fotsttiarhipmnoriomndrasi.,teatiuitowfin , and it had continued almost down to the pre-
sent moment, was that no bishop could be appointed
except by the Sovereign or by the Pope with the assent
and concurrence of the Sovereign.—(ldeas, hear.) It was
incontestably established by the evidence given before
the Committee which; sat in 1816 that the most pre-
eminently Roman Catholic countries in Europe, Austria,
Spain, and France, would not permit the bulls of the Pope
to circulate until they had received the sanction of the Go-
vernments of those countries. It was the same in England
when the Roman Catholic religion was established here, and
in the reign of Edward I. a man was sentenced to death
for introducing a Papal bull into England, and the sentence
was remitted only at the entreaty of the Chancellor and
Treasurer. It appeared to him, the" that he had clearly
briwhenuaj el
gssel
naeac l
tti
oedste
fymovo.n T h e
established the point, that the see Of Rome had no right
to create dioceses in England without the consent of the
State ; and if the Pope had not that power, when the Ro-
man Catholic religion was the religi n of the country,
whence did he derive the power of doing so now? The
argument of the Roman Catholics respecting the inter-
ference of temporal sovereigns in the appointment of arch-
bishops and bishops was that the only reason why the rati-
fication of the Sovereign could be thought necessary was
this, that in Roman Catholic times and in Roman Catho-
lic countries bishops and archbishops possessed great tem-
poralities, and exercised power, authority, and jurisdic-
aolHi
ni
top, ehuhef
rcoeplri eodaser
administering
Papal
that
ostar
rawe be
citsrb liiepotpthadm
consecration,h distinction,
hba
efeboreearh moaarependupedi
tnonsifiahnontetfi
eeoadtdngh,
frteoeorcfe
odhepruhuwjcrrecoei
objects
thy.e;
theer
hwisomethingeniri theret,hiilotfp,
aterje. in
eegis
exercise
thereyxrt dh,et this
risosaaoecsrs
age
snuemd
ai ent argument;
nothingia; l
analogous
admit
purelyeetomai rtut jurisdiction
tinlbevhoiaestswsvhht spiritual
eeohnrpeopttrtti there
ohillo proceeding
eane
djge jurisdiction,
Pro-
testants rest ling in thatsdeuw thsperirituul
Protestant bishop at
Jerusalem was there without a see, without a diocese, and
would any medal], him that the Pope and the Roman Ca-
tholic clergy and laity meant no more than that with refe-
rence to this country / Did they not, on the contrary, find
that the Roman Catholics sought to establish a hierarchy in
this realm of England with a view to temporal sovereignty?
—(No, no.) When he turned to the rescript of the Pope
on this point he found, from the authorized translation of
that document issued by Cardinal Wiseman himself that the
Pope directed the erection of two sees to be presided over by
Dr. Wiseman, and those were Westminster and Southwark ;
that of the northern district, there was to be one see at Hex-
ham ; that for the see of York, he provided that the seat of
the bishop should be at the city of Beverley; that of two
others, one should be at the city of Salford, and the other at
the city of Northampton. By what authority did the Pope
erect cities within the United Kingdom ? Was not that an act
of territorial sovereignty ? If any town or place was appointed
to be an episcopal see it became ipso facto a city. All towns
were raised to the rank of citi e
becoming the seats of
bishops—did any one deny that ?s by
—(Hear, hear.) They would
find that every , sty derived its rank from being now or
having been in times past the seat of a bishop, and so in-
herent was this privilege or distinction that, though the
bishopric might be dissolved, the title of the city remained;
for instance, Westminster—there the bishopric was dissolved,
but the title of city remained. Surely, then, when the Pope
raised, or rather attempted to raise, English towns to the
rank of cities, he must have meant that civil consequences
were to ensue; civil consequences necessarily attached to
such acts, and he did not see how any one could successfully
contend that such steps did not involve territorial jurisdic-
tion and sovereignty. It was said that the Pope did not in-
tend to assume territorial jurisdiction; that he merely in-
tended to invest his bishops and clergy with a purely spi-
ritual character ; but what did he find to be the words of the
rescript? They were these—" And in the spiritual govern-
ment of the clergy and people, and in all matters appertain-
ing to the pastoral office, the archbishops and bishops of
England shall henceforward enjoy all the rights and privileges
which the Catholic arubishops and bishops in other states
have and use, according to the common ordinances of the
sacred canons and apostolic constitutions." He desired to
know, was there, in that respect, any difference between this

LL

and any other ccuntry ? In Roman Catholic countries,
where Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops exercised
powers not merely spiritual, their appointment proceeded
from, or at least VT is ratified by, the temporal Sovereign
of the State. But, again, he found in the rescript this
passage.—
" But in the sacred government of clergy and laity, and
in all other things appertaining unto the pastoral office, the
archbishops and bishops of England will henceforveard en-
joy all the rights and faculties which the other Catholic
archbishops and bishops of other nations, according to the
common ordinances of the sacred canons and apostolic con-
stitutions, use, and may use; and are equally bound by the
obligations which bind the other archbishops and bishops
according to the same common discipline of the Catholic
Church. And whatever regulations, either in the ancient
system of the Anglican churches or in the subsequent mis
sionary state, may have been in force either by special con-
stitutions or privileges or peculiar customs, will now henceo
forth carry no right nor obligation ; and in order that nr
doubt may remain on this point, we, by the plenitude of ou
apostolic authority, repeal and abrogate all power whatso-
ever of imposing obligation or conferring right in those
peculiar constitutions and privileges of whatever kind they
may be, :old in all customs, by whomsoever, or at whatever
more ancient or immemorial time brought in? Hence it
will for the future be solely competent for the archbishop
and bishops of England to distinguish what things belong
to the executions of the common ecclesiastical law, and
what, according to the common discipline of 'the church, is
intrusted to the authority of the bishops."
Was there not to be s,en in that passage evidence of giving
to the episcopacy power besides and beyond that which was
purely spiritual? There might, for example, be a Roman
Catholic priest holding a certain chapel, and having the
spiritual care of the Roman Catholics in float district, and
appointed to it brforo the new Rumen Catholic bishops in
this country had received their appointments. 'Cider the
authority which the Pops gave such priests might be sus-
pended—they might be excommunicated; but, supposing a
priest merely suspended, even that power would be giving
to the Roman Cathic hierarchy not only a spiritual, but
an ecclesiastical and civil status with various rights and pri-
vileges of a temporal kind. If they attempted to deprive a
priest of a care of souls and a chapel with temporal advan-
tages attached to it, he might appeal to the courts of law in
this country to enable him to enforce his -rights. And the
rights, which Lord Mansfield held to belon6tthe Protestant
e
Dissenters would then belong to Roman a olic priests ;
thus a court of law would be brought into conflict with
what was called the spiritual jurisdiction of the
Church of Rome, for that spiritual 'faiisdiction was
manifestly at variance with the law of England. Now,
he used this argument for the purpose of showing that
so far as a Roman Catholic bishop exercised a spiritual juris-
diction, it was a quasi civil jurisdiction, and something be-
yond a spiritual jurisdiction—a privilege which could not be
given to any man but by the law of the lend; such powers
and privileges could only come from the authority of the law
or from the favour of the Sovereign. Tben they were told
that this being a Protestant • country, Roman Catholic eccle-
siastics would not submit to any authority excepting that of
the Supreme,Pontiffe but supposing thatwere so conceded
for the purpose of argument, and for thee purpose only,—
suppose that this country was bound to: give them all that
was desired, it did not follow that because the law of this
country did not allow a case such as he lad been supposing,
the law of Rome would not permit it.. He begged to refer
the House for a moment to what o her Protestant States of
Europe had done. In those the Pope cep.peded the question
of the appointment of a bishop to a very eat extent; and
it appeared to him, that in the receritlyeatered state of the
law of this country negotiations might haVe been opened be-
tween England and the See of Rome for tee purpose of placing
us on the same footing as other Proteattiee States of Europe.
As the law now now stood on our statitteebook that might
be done.—(Hear, hear.) He would asl; eras there anything
to prevent the Sovereign of this country establishing
diplomatic relations with the Pope, inaohonch as an Act had
already been passel for that purpose? le tie Roman Catho-
lics wanted to have any important chAnges made, why did
they not come to Parliament for thee. purpose? If they
sought legitimate objects, they should inreue them by legal
and constitutional means, and not by what was called an
insult, though he would not apply to t that term, because
he did not think that any insult was ineentled ; but what he
maintained was that they had no right teeny civil or tem-
poral jurisdiction • and he did not how inquire whether
that was their Object or not; ha rather regarded the
tendency and probable effect of their proceedings. He did
,the intention, the
not care whether it was intended or not. He looked to
resultt h e
result,
had
been and h e
evasionfoun d thath
the
privilegesha t
e e
and prerogatives
e
of the Sovereign, and an iavasion, of the liberties of a free
theand independent kingdom. The vicars-apostolic had no
sees, no dioceses, and no authority to enforce the canon law.
They had nothing but the simple jurisdiction over the
members of their own faith. It Was Said that the Roman
Catholic religion absolutely required the" establishment of a
regularly constituted hierarchy. But to one had established
this position. The Earl of Arundel and Sun ey had indeed
said that certain irregularities whichehad taken place ren•
dered the appointment of the new bishops necessary. How
far the Noble Earl had stated this of leja :own knowledge he
did not know. But according to the, (experience of us all,
the life and conduct of the Roman Cr Ileplic clergy had been
exemplary in the extreme—(Cheers)--and no one had heard
of irregularities on their part.—(Heale) Dr. Wiseman let
the truth out.' He said the Catholics required a regular
hierarchy because they wanted to introduce the canon law,
and they could not do that as long as'they had vicarseripos-
tolic. Dr. Wiseman said nothing of the discipline of the
Church.—( Hear.) Now, had the Roman Catholic religion
declined under the government of. vicars-apostolic? The
Papal brief recited, on the contrary, that the members of
the faithful were daily increasing, Lied that the Church in
England was in a most. prosperous cpndition. It was clear
that what was wanted was the cation law and synodical
action.—(Cheers.). Did any one desire to see archbishops
and bishops looking to R me as the fountain of jurisdiction.
aed, sitting side by side with tle Imperial Parliament,
provincial synods appointed by the' hes of Rome?
,He did
not. We had seen enough of that hill's sister country. He
could not forget the Synod of Thurles—(Cheers)—or the
way in which that synod of ecclesiastics had set itself
in opposition to the enactments of this and the other House
of Parliament. The large sums voted for the establishment
of colleges in Ireland had been received with universal satis-
faction by the gentlemen and laity of Ireland.—(No, no,
and cheers.) But it happened ehet the see of Renee had
sent to Ireland, and placed in the great archbishopric of Ar-
magh an ecclesiastic who, though an Irishman by name,
was really an Italian monk. Dr. Ctillen was sent to Ireland
by the Pope to prevent the establishment of these colleges.
Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL—Dr. Crolly was arch-
bishop when the Act was passed for establishing these col-
leges.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL b
„ Oieved Dr. Crolly was an
assenting party to the passing of the Act.—(Cheers.) But
he unfortunately died, and was succeeded by Dr. Cullen,
who, though an Irishman hi, nit
- was to all intents and
purposes an Italian monk. n nce of the usages of the
Irish Roman Catholic Church tee Cullen was elected.—
(Oh, oh, and cheers.) The established usage was that the
clergy should send three names to Rohm upon a vacancy for
the election of the Pope. They were also in the habit of
writing against one name ,the Word dignus, against the
other dignior, and against the "third digniesimus, which
last was usually appointed by the
--9 Pope. The Irish clergy
sent those three names, but the- tope
passed by them all,
and, violating the established usage and practice of the
Church, sent Dr. Cullen to Irelandas Archbishop of Armagh.
—(Cheers.) Dr. Cullen had nevec exercised pastoral juris-
diction in Ireland before. He' limn-toned the synod of
Thurles, and, by his casting vote decided that the Roman
Catholics should net adopt the eolleges which were being
established under the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
Now, was that interference spiritual or ecclesiastical? Did
the people of this country desire to see a synod of this de-
scription sitting in England? Lek the House observe that
in our Church we did not permit the action of convocation,
although it was subject to the control of the Crown. It was
summoned and presided over by at
l authority on the part of
the Crown, who had the power to Prorogue or to dissolve it,
and in so far as it was composed o bishops and other digni-
taries, appointed by the Crown, a Considerable control was
exercised by the Crown over its Ptoceedings. But a synod
of Roman Catholic bishops in thio country would be com-
posed of persons over whom the Crown would have no
control, and it would exercise' power, jurisdiction, and au-
thority in competition, and nerhe
• —Ps in conflict with the
Imperial Legislature.—(Cries of o Hear, hear.") If we
looked abroad did we find the-e Powers andprerogatives ex-
ercised with forbearance ? Look,,at
Belgium, where the
clergy and the State were in conflict upon more subjects
than one—on education among the rest. It was complained
in Belgium that education had been frustrated by the oppo-
sition of the clergy, emanating from
the Court ()filmes. In
Sardinia the clergy had made the most immoderate and pre-
posterous pretensions. They had' claimed immunity from
the operation of the civil laws, and the Archbishop of Turin
had refused one of the Ministers the Sacraments until he had
expressed his deep repentance for the attempt to make eccle-
siastics amenable to the civil laws. Roman Catholics could
not deny, and ecclesiastical history proved the truth of the
assertion, that the priesthood—not of the working clergy,
but of the higher order of the hierarchy—was one of en-
croachment and aggression. What Was the intention of this
Bill? If lie turned to the Papal reseeipt, ho found the fol-
lowing passage :
" Wherefore. after diligently weighing the state of Catho-
licity in Englasd at the time that now is, and after reflect-
ing upon the increase which, in various places, is manifest in
the already large number of Catholics, and after considering
how the hindrances which stood in the way of the spreading
of the Catholic faith are daily being removed, we have
judged that the time has come in which the form of eccle-
siastical government may be restored in England, which
freely prevails in other countries where no special cause
requires the extraordinary ministry of the vicars-apostolic.
In forming this judgment we felt that the circumstances
of times and things had rendered the government of the
Catholics of England by vicars-apostolic no longer neces-
sary, and, indeed, that such a change had taken place that
called for the establishment of the ordinary form of episcopal
rule in that kingdom."
These were to him ominous words. The times and cir-
cumstances chosen for this act were rettarkable. There was
a schism in the Established Church of this country.—
( Hear, hear.) Multitudes, deluded by mediaeval tendencies,
and by a fondness for the picturesque in religion—( A laugh)
were passing
over to that which, if not the Roman Catholic
religion, was something uncommonly like it. It was thought
the time had come when a great blow might be struck—
when the contest might be renewed for the prerogatives,
power, advantages, and emoluments of the Church. It was,
therefore, incumbent on the House to be watchful and
wary. Whatever was essential to the exercise of the Roman
Catholic religion,_ let it be granted, not as a matter of favour,
but of right. But, on the other and, let them be careful
to allow of no evasion or encroachment upon the law or the
Constitution. He could not agree with the Hon. and Learned
Member opposite that Par laent ought to wait, and not
to act until the evil became intmolerable.—(Hear, hear.) He
said let them take their stand upon the law and Constitu-
tion in the first instance. For in every instance where an
invasion or infraction' had once been admitted, it was set up
as a precedent. It was said that the Legislature had per-
mitted the evasion and infraction of the law in Ireland.—
(Hear, hear.) Ireland was undoubtedly an exceptional case.
Hear, hear, from the Irish Members.) It had a Roman
Catholic population and an established Church which would
not minister to that population.—(Cheers.) It had Raman
Catholic bishops there, by whom the law had been tacitiee
evaded. But was there no difference between the manner in
which the law had been evaded in Ireland and evaded in
England ? Had there been a cardinal sent to Ireland in flam-
ing attire and wearing the cardinalitial hat to proclaim the
bulls of the Pope? Yet, b cause the Government had al-
lowed the law to be evaded in Ireland, this was put forward
as a reason why no notice should betaken of the evasion of the
law in England. He deeply regretted the necessity of includ-
ing Ireland in this measure. But the state of things had
changed there since the Pope had sent over an ecclesiastic
to govern the country who bad not been nominate d by the
clergy. What was to hinder him sending over foreign ec-
clesiastics to this country who did not profess to be bound by
our laws, but by the canon law? He had heard it said that
this question ought to have been settled through the inter-
vent on of the Foreign-office, and that the Noble Lord
(Palmerston) ought to have sent a fleet and an armed
force to Civita Vecchia. Suppose the question had been
treated in this manner, and that a fleet had bombarded that

port. Why, what an outcry would not then have been
made ! Hon. Gentlemen would have said, " Look at this
monstrous tyranny of the strong against the weak !" They
would have been told that it was unworthy of a great
kingdom to crush an old man whose temporal power as a
prince was of the lowest possible order. Such a course
would have covered the country with ridicule beyond any-
thing that could be conceived. Why, it was not worth
while for a great country like this to enter into hostilities
with the Pontiff for acts like these, or for anything he
could do. We had the remedy against his attacks in our own
hands. We could deal with our own subjects, Protestant or
Roman Catholic, without recourse to any measure beyond
our shores.— ( dear, hear.) And if those subjects assumed
territorial titles which by law they were not competent to
take, it was for the State to prevent the perpetration of
offences it never entered into the contemplation of the Le-
gislature that they would have committed.—(Cheers.) It
was nothing to say the measure was small to meet evils of
such magnitude. It would, at all events, be sufficient to
prevent the realization of Pontifical and hierarchical en-
croachments. They could not have episcopal jurisdiction,
they could not introduce canon law, they could not assemble
in synod t 3 frustrate. perchanet, the decrees of the Imperial
Parliament, unless there were bishop] with territorial titles
end that the Bill effectually prohibited. In a word, it
would meet the aggression which had been made upon. us,
and would protect the rights and vindicate the liberties of
this country so far as they had been assailed, and would
provide for the independence of this free and ancient
kingdom.—(Cheers.)
Mr CARDWELL said he had witnessed the rising of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) with
great pleasure, as he expected from one of the law-officers
of the Crown a clear and full explanation of th • measure
under discussion. In that hope he had been disappointed.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had told the house that
the municipal and the national law had been alike violated,
that the honour of the country had been attacked, and the
rights of our Sovereign aggrieved. He aske i the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman where had her Majesty's Go-
vernment been all the time P—Cheers.) Did the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman mean to say the municipal law
had been disregarded, the interne ions) law scandalously in-
fringed, a territorial invasion perpetrated. that a foreign
Prince, and the representatives of a foreign Court, were
governing her Majesty's subjects with temporal jurisdiction,
and that the Executive Government had all the them made
no sign, and had not even remonstrated with that foreign
Power?—(Hear, hear.) Did he affirm that acts of
treason had been committed within this realm, and the law
officers of the Crown took no steps for the vindication of the
Sovereign? But, above all, did he mean to say Government
now relied on the Bill before them for the vindication of the
wrongs that bad been done?—(llear, hear.) He would
now invite the House to the consideration of the Bill, which
the House bad, no doubt, observed the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had entirely omitted to speak about. He said
there were two classes who opposed the :Bill—the Roman
Catholic party, who demanded, and thought they had a
right to the hierarchy, and those Protestants who treated the
menaces of the Papal power with indifference. But he for-
got there might be Protestants who regarded the act of the
Pope with feelings akin to his own, but who, nevertheless,
could not give their sanction to the proposed measure. In
the course of his speech he had ingeniously endeavoured to
show that the bishops nominated by the Pope had not only
spiritual but temporal power, that they were about to
introduce canon law, which should stand side by side
with Acts of the Imperial Parliament, and that they had in-
vaded the prerogative of the Crovn ; but he would ask the
Hon. and Learned Gedtlemine Crown
the Bill was a measure
by which he proposed to prevent all that? To his
Roman Catholic fellow-subjects he (Mr. Cardwell) declared
that he regarded what had been done as an aggression on
the rights of his country, the more serious because unpro-
voked. In the course of that debate he had heard doe.
trinces laid down respecting the nature of civil and reli-
gious liberty which were not consonantwith those the people
of England had been accustomed to regard as their true
meaning or as sanctioned by the law, and he could not for-
get that such doctrines were not those of Locke, and of
Blackstone, and of Lord Somers, and could not but regard
them as fatal to all duties and obligations of the social state.
It was surely the right of every man to worship his Creator
according to the dictates of his conscience, but the rights
of a Church, as an ecclesiastical body, must be
bound by the law of the civil government of the State,
and the exercise of its power must be confined by the safety
and convenience of the State. Why did they close the con-
vocation of the Established Church and carry her appeals to
the Privy Council? Why did they maintain the supremacy
of the Queen, and the control of Parliament, but that no
danger might arise to the State?—(Hear, hear.) An
allusion had been made to the United States in the course
of the debate, but he would ask was there any
throne there to which the successor had been changed on
account of his religion—had they a Bill of Rights, an Act of
Settlement, a coronation oath. or an oath by which Roman
Catholic Members took their seats?—(Hear) He would
further ask the Roman Catholics if they, living under the
shelter of Protestant institutions, chose to make a change,
was it not necessary to consult the convenience and the
wishes of the country in which they lived ? (Cheers.) They
had not consulted the convenience of the country, the wishes
of the people, nor the safety of the Sovereign, and in doing
as they had done they had committed a substantial aggres-
sion. —(Cheers.) He was not dwelling on mere words,
phrase logy, or shadow, but was dealing with a substance.
The Roman Catholics had changed a missionary Church into
a normal Church, and had done so ender circumstances, as it
proved, hazardous to the general tranquillity and content of
this Protes ant realm. But what remedy had the Go-
vernment provided in their Bill? When it was incor-
porated with the statute-book the red-stockinged Car-
dinal would still remain, and bulls, the introduction of
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman so much dreaded,
would still be admitted. Of all things the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman had the greatest objection
to the introduction or the canon law. Whether he
tad been consulted in the drawing up of the Bill he (Mr.
Cardwell) could not say ; but he knew that in the one clause
to which it was now reduced there was nothing whatever to
prevent the introduction of canon law and the assembling of
synods. Would it prevent the conversion of the money of
young ladies to superstitious uses, to which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman alluded when he spoke of the pleasure
with which he had heard the petition presented by the Ho-
nourable Baronet (Sir R. In'glis) ? He had endeavoured
to prove the bi hops of a voluntary Church exercised tem-
poral authority because the courts of law would take cog-
nizance of their by-laws made by the authority of the
Church, and seemed to think the Bill defeated that power by
preventing bequests and endowmen's. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman did not know that the three clauses
designed to have that operation had been withdrawn, and
therefore the only foundation on which he rested his argu-
ment as to temporal powers had fallen to the ground.—
(Hear.) What was the foundation laid when the Bill was
introduced ? They were told that when Dr. Cullen came
from (tome and went to Ireland be violated the law by taking
the title of Archbishop of, Armagh; that Lord Clarendon
consulted the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for
Ireland, and received this answer :—" Dr. Cullen appears to
have violated the law; but we have only seen newspapers;
we cannot get access to the fact in any other way than the
newspapers; but they are not evidence; and we shall not
obtain possession of the letter, and therefore Dr. Cullen can-
not be prosecuted with success by the Irish Government."
Now, would it be gravely believed that that was introduced
as an argument for bringing is a Bill which would leave the
law in England precisely as it was in Ireland, and that the
day after the Bill was passed the Government of England
would consult the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attor-
ney-General and Solicitor-General for England, who would
say to them," Dr. Wiseman has violated the law—we have
only seen it in a newspaper; we cannot get access to the
original letter, and therefore we cannot advise a prosecution
of Dr. Wiseman?"— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had told them some remarkable cases in which
foreign powers did vindicate their authority against the
Pope. He referred to the case of Henry I , but he had
forgotten to tell them that Henry 1., not content with
that internal part of his proceedings, to which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman referred, addressed the Pope in these
words
"Be it known unto you that by God's help the dignities
and usages of the kingdom of England shall not, during my
lifetime, suffer any diminution. And even where I, which
God forbi I, so far to suffer myself to be abased, my robles,
nay thebid,
whole people of the land, would not in anywise per-
mit it."
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said they had passed a
Bill by which they could negotiate with Rome. Then, he
asked the Hon. and Learned Gentleman if all those great
calamities had happened which he spoke of, if the dig-
nity of the Crown was insulted, if territorial rights were in- .
vaded, if a power to interfere in temporal matters had been
assumed, why had they made no remonstrance—why was
there nothing external done to relieve the country from the
indignity which it had suffered? He asked that question
for this reason, that he had been exceedingly struck by an
observation made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
Appealing to the Roman Catholic Members, he used these
words, "What is the meaning of all this ferment you have
excited against us ? You have spoken of us as if we were
going to repeal the Emancipation Act."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—What I said was, that
they spoke as if we were going to re-enact the penal Acts.
Mr. CARDWELL continued.—That made good h's argu-
ment. The Bill appeared to him to be just enough to irri-
tate, but not enough to satisfy. It appeared to him as if
they had suffered a great external grievance from the Pope,
but had visited it on the loyal Catholic subjects of this
country—(Hear, hear)—and that they were doing it in this
manner not so as to vindicate the honour of the Crown, or
repel the insult they had received, or add one iota to the se-
curity of Protestant institutions; but they were creating in
the vitals of this country a little wound, a festering wound,
the end of which they could not foresee, and the cure • f which
they could not undertake to perform. It appeared to him
they were called on to assent to a measure which contained
within itself no possibility of remedying the evil; because
they should bear in mind that, restrain the assumption of
ecclesiastical titles as they would, they would leave the thing
just were they found it. There would be their archbishops,
bishops, and synods; and there would be the canon law.—
(Hear, hear.) There would be the whole usurpation entire
and complete. They would have prohibited the usurpation
of particular names under a penalty imposed by a clause
which they knew they could not help being evaded, because
they had seen it evaded in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He
looked with as such jealousy as anybody upon the per-
petual aggression of the Church of Rome. He feared
there would be in this country a great public calamity, be-
cause he looked on religious discord and the perpetual dissent
of one class of the community from another, as about the
greatest calamity that could happen.— (Hear, hear.) He had
uniformly endeavoured, adhering to the settlement of 1829,
to remove all those obsolete enactments which had no force
except that they were offensive to the feelings and irritating
to the tranquillity of large bodies of his countrymen. He
had done that in the earnest hope and expectation that by
mutual moderation on both sides they might live together
calmly and peacefully, believing as he did that truth was
on his side, and that truth must prevail. But he must ask
the forgiveness of his Roman Catholic friends if he said that
that desire had not been without misgiving. He begged to
remind the House of that remarkable passage in which the
illustrious author of the emancipation closed his speech in
proposing it to that House. He told the House of Com-
mons then, at be ( Mr. Cardwell) would repeat now, that it
was very possible they might have a struggle, but it would
be no longer a struggle for civil liberty ; it would be a
struggle against the intolerance of an aspiring Church. But,
said he,—
"We shall range on our side the illustrious authorities
which have heretofore been enlisted en theirs; the rallying
cry of civil liberty will then be all our own. We shall enter
the field with the full assurance of victory, armed with the
consciousness of having done justice, and of being in tre
right ; backed by the unatimous feeling of England,bydt
firm union of orthodoxy and dissent, by the app auing
voice of Scotland; and, if other aid be requisite, cheered by
the 'ympathies of every free state in either hemisphere, and
by the wishes and the prayers of every free man, in whatever
clime. or under whatever form of Government his lot may
have been cast."
It might he that the spirit of the Roman Catholic religion
and the Protestant religion could not harmoniously coalesce;
but he earnestly hoped that the day of that struggle might
be averted. But of all wars the worst was a little war;
and of All wars the worst was a little civil war about rqi-

ligious matters. He was persuaded that by assenting to
this Bill they would not vindicate the honour of the Crown ;
that they would not protect the soveriegnty of Great
Britain ; that they would not repel this territorial in-
vasion ; that they would not accomplish any object by a
solitary clause which it was known would be evaded, and
could not be carried into effect. He believed that if the
other clauses had remained in the Bill he could have demon-
strated that there was not one of them that could not be
evaded. He therefore considered that by supporting this
Bill he should rather offer an affront than comply with
the desire of Protestant England; that he would be doing
too much to render Ireland ungovernable. and that upon
him would rest a share of tie responsibility of that social
strife which might arise on a subject in which they were
now in the right, and which he agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Attorney-General they must ever be watchful and
cautious in their beginning, because if they put themselves
in a wrong position the retribution would recoile on them,-
selves. Believing that that would be th• effect of giving his
support to the second reading of this Bill in regard to the
safety of the country and the honour of the Crown, and
those justly-excited feelings which Protestant England had
displayed, he should refuse his concurrence to the second
reading of this Bill.
The debate was then adjourned to this day, on the motion
(we believe) of sir. M MILNES.
Mr. DISRAELI said it would be desirable if the llouse
could know whether the debate would certainly be pro.aeLhd
with this evening ?
Sir G. GREY said, the Hon. Member for Bridport, who
had a motion on the paper, had consented to postpone it, and
he hoped other Hon. Members would do the same.
Mr. SADLIEIi said he had a notice of motion ou the
paper; it was a matter of great importance, and under all
the circumstances, he felt himself bound to proceed with it.