The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-15 00:00:00

THE SUN,

iene7eb e°g•nizance of the authorities, under the
Th rs"
concordat entered into with Francis I.
e R
Point of
• °llan Catholics knew not the Pope in a temporal
view, he was looked upon only as a spiritual
soverei
The gn, and as such submitted to. Mean)
tholica as such did not recognize the Pope in his ca-
V•
itiYuf,al temporal. sovereign. They regarded him as the
En dad of their Church. He had temporal authority
Curtis gland; Dr. Doyle gave evidence to that effect, and Dr.
aae at the time Archbishop of Armagh, iii his evidence,
villtt that he had no other authority than spiritual exercised
e.tnn the canons of the Church. Many Catholics thought
tould have been better if the Popes had never interfered
'Eta temporal authority. It was true that at one period of
(history of this country some of the Popes attempted to
e::ise temporal authority for their own aggrandisement .
a hear.) Such an individual was Alexander VI, who
4,",a disgrace to the Popedom. It was also to be observed
ii"ifslt out of 260 Popes who had presided at Rome, not more
teei twenty or thirty had failed to act up to the principles of
ea' religion. Gregory VII. and Innocent 111. had used
their spiritual authority kr their own aggrandisement an
but it
their families, and disgraced the cloth they wore;
Wri'lt could not be denied that the great part of them
People front the people, and acted with and fur the
tit) and that they exercised their *spiritual autho-
sitic_ao put an end to the vices of the time, in oppo•
a__
ea to despotism, and in suppert of the people. He con-
&sun indepen
rierarred with what had been said by the Noble Lord the
euetary for Foreign Affairs, that the Pope of Rome should
dent Prince. There was no religion of the
kellt of
notion Rome and the Church of Rome. He repudiated
Wes the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church
eiane e same everywhere. The question of a divided alle-
tioa we was raised when the question of Catholic emancipa-
owe as discussed, but the Catholics recognised the Pope
"I! as the spiritual head of their Church. The Catholics
tie ngland and Ireland did ho more than the two thousand
th_re'3Men, with the Bishop of Exeter at their head when
cheL asserted that the Queen had not supremacy, in the
had cb of England in matters ecclesiastical. Catholics
div_fitinother doctrine, that the hierarchy was a
eecTi.:. institution, and in its normal and ordinary
to e u°ll, the bishops must have territorial titles in order
werezherciae episcopal jurisdiction. The vicars-apostolic
hrtgla
in factut temporary substitution. The Bishop of Rome,
of a , with the system of vicars-apostolic, is the Bishop
with the vicars-apostolic • acting under him
was nbstitate. Under the vicars-apostolic the country
'ar
tween Parcelled out into districts; the only difference be-
Ihe f; (ibishops with local titles is, that the former
hod of the Pope. He might be asked why they
legatessought an hierarchy before. The Catholics had been
• aye .
%split xious for the restoration of the hierarchy, as an
pus gem had been made to Queen Elizabeth for that
eoalire, which was postponed, as it was though she would
10 herrni to the Roman Catholic Church ; but afterwards, in
for exe.regn, one hundred priests were drawn and quartered
for a ieeksing their ministry. That was not a time to ask
itot. i!aierarehy. In the reign of James the First, after the
it Plot, with which the Catholics as a bogy had
it. fg t° do, the prejudice was too great to think of getting
ape.. a the reign of Cearles the Second the same prejudice
r•fh`silled, arising from the conspiracy of Titus Oates.
C jitt threes 11. came to the throne, and toleration of
fort ()lies was
permitted, an application was made to him
catitibs establishment of an hierarchy. He, although a
eystea°liet inquired what was the difference between the two
soeer-ast and it was from the document presented to that
I
earn.? explanation that he (Mr. Fagan) himself
reto wnat the difference was. The Catholics were not
gn'ised until the reign of George 111. The Catholics
butthat time were few, and did not require it,
there numbers were increased by the immie
Ellin of the Irish. The case was now different, for the
eetc,°"" in. London were a greater number than the
%oil Population of Rome. The Hon. Gentleman then
letlosZta Passage from Mr. Macaulay, which stated the revo-
Cloa:eani the nineteenth century, which put an end to the
an en', went of one nation ever another, and that which put
that' to the property of man in man, was effected through
the atholic religion. The promulgation of the sovereignty
of People was first promulgated by the Jesuits, and that
of this divine rights of kings by Protestants. The provisions
toohl°aßill were extended to Ireland because the Government
the offence that the Synod of Thurles had condemned
an rish colleges. He had defended the colleges more than
anY roan in Ireland, but the bishops had a right to express
ed4°Pinion upon them as the guardians of religion, and
thefation was nothing without religion, and had a right to
hake them "dangerous to faith and morals." The Bill
a iii•t°, Paralyse the Episcopals, and would make every act of
atoejliamr°P with a territorial title invalid ; the consequence
W
oe that such a bishop ordaining a priest the ordination
alea W would be invalid, and marriages solemnized by him
teen w°uld be invalid. All suOle priests Ire) law were lay-
one'eand therefore if the constituencies in and returned
the
hundred and five priests the Noble Lord would not
Jeet to
the a their taking their seats in the House. He warned
the uoverrirnent against endangering the 600,000/. paid to
felt ' of the minority of the people of Ireland, and he
Reft.."„l enis duty also to state to the Noble Lord (Lord J.
them
and to his Government, that though he voted with
eoeaa on last evening under the influence of conscientious
fiction,
, yet a question might arise which would neces-
soi,P induce him and many other Irish Members to oppose,
hear" thereby to jeopardise the present Government.-( Hear,
night)' Fla admitted that he might have, by his vote of last
be run the risk of losing his popularity, yet, however
lie estimated the goodwill of the people of Ireland,
uld not
eietio for an consideration vote contrary to his con-
k% 4* 49 a friend of the Noble Lord and of his Govern-
t' he earnestly implored him to give up a measure that
a eind entail on his former generous and heroic achievements
thaloat infelicitous and disareeable character ; but should
ke"e,sNoble Lord persevere, he was determined, on every occa-
that h
measure could
conscientiously, to vote against any
meat._ re proposed by him or any member of his Govern-
(Hear, hear.).
3,eti oral Hon. Members rose together, but
itt:,SPEAKER called on
111 '• PEEL (Leominster) who entirely concurred in seve•
• tui sentiments expressed more than once in that discussion,
(ttcnY, that it would be better to wait till the Noble Lord
r'
John Russell)bad developed the hewing and details
of ha
measure. Such a line of procedure he believed would
ve can
on with great advantage, for then the House
fe°,,nlfl be able to judge of the merhe or demerits of the Bill
iaipwa . llich he (Lord John Russell) had moved for leave to
iae-eihinoe• With the permission of the House, he would
"
a few
remarks, thoughthose remarks he did not
by
to establish his conduct with regard to the reca-
ll-el.° in its future discussion through the House. He should,
on,weaer, say that there were, in his opinion, some matters
11:"Ileeted with the subject, as it appeared at prrent,
iihere totally irrelevant to the manner in which the Bi 1
sad°tlld be franeed.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") He evidently
thatthat • lof the Noble Lord's (Lord John Russell)
Bill
thelnot satisfy either side of the House ; for
consideredtherewer
ral ;'than. Gentlemen on the opposite side who
went beyond what was necessary for the present emer-
P-neY, athilothers his side of the House considered that
it e on
their not by any means come up to their expectations or
Zeir wishes. Many Hon. Gentlemen ou this side of the House
V.eonsidered that the language used by the Noble Lord in
a,,,Ptroductory preface of the measure to be altogether at
112-matlee with the spirit of his letter to the Bishop of Dur-
not') and they therefore thanked him for the letter, but were
his at all satisfied with his speech on the introduction of
tleoille He was not surprised that many Honourable Gen-
% -en, who advocated this measure as an attack on the
tentstitution, a violation of the prerogative, and an insultlt
%he bishops of the Established Church, should have fed
th,,siderable disappointment that a measure, which engage
re.;' attention of Government and the country, should be
;actin to the narrow limits of only extending the. 28th
that of the Catholic Relief Bill of 1821 He considered
than t was their duty as legislators to do something more.
eelapla""elY to review the opinion of the country, parti-
este -a' es it n rested with the Government to decide the
et* Th ow..
h Bill was whether anv
revoa, .° question implied in t e
the
I,llstia:.tion had been given by the Court ot Rome toodno
netita7;B and rights of this country ? And he had
sectai•un in asserting that such was the case when hele•
be (ad °n. the arrogance of the recent pastoral letter. Yet
enacts an,,°t think that there was any necessity for legislative.
,Ini_ent;,/t,si and even though he should, for aigu-
`ue p-:^e• admit that there was, he doubted whether
* 1 111
-sure f th Noble Lord (Lord John Russell)
ou e maintain
. o e
Co .e inviolate the sanctity of religious
liberty.
t° loe4sidered that there was no great value or importance
thou,: aatteehed to the system of attacking the Roman. Ca-
that '4,`Altrch by the severity of legislation, but he believed
theZeiseirit and disposition evinced by the majority of
tion;•-.°ine of this country, by their meetings and protests-
rrote%and every other symptom of their attachment to the
guard ant Church of this country, were a sufficient safe-
ProtestOgainst any aggression from without. Were not the
ne ant Dissenters, in union with the Protestants of the
04. ah Church continually bolding meetings under the in •
ahell,e° (d. thei;fears that -the Roman Catholic Church was
The-," t° make rapid strides on their much-cherished faith?
to the Met to assure each other of their zeal and attachment
tem bereed of their fathers, and thus by entering into a
Pri4,;,,,nd of union, they were determined to stand by the
aleat'es of the revolution. On those occasions they
showed that the cause of their religion was indis-
Clarl hound up with the interests of the Protestant
rae4;„`"- (Hear, hear.) He did not consider the present
heeter• re to be a sufficient one; though the Attorney-go-
• aald that it was intended to provide against a specific
Course and that he (the Attorney-General) in taking that
that Was acting on a sound maxim of policy. He thought
rhos;t
, would be desirable that the Roman Catholic religion
record be arranged in such a manner as would. prevent the
eleh.'enee of any such agitation that might again arouse the
atered feelings of the country. When he heard the
lioril• Member for Meath (Mr. 11. Grattan) allude to the
thciOf 1813, for the relief of the disabilities of Roman Ca-
liesat as being one that, if then passed, would remove
.the
of 1- uurree
gs and agitation which so virulently prevailed
rnoattate,a he should say that though the Act of 1829 had re-
Were"' some securities from the Protestant Church, yet there
to other securities given by the Roman Catholic Church
wiser of those; and such a course he thought to be much
ted by
the frlnd more judieious than any that could be effec
eke, ill of 1813 ; for the Act of 1829 sanctioned a communi-
this-etween the see of Rome and the Roman Catholics of
Coant • was free and unim
Pecied. 179 and that communication -
Pergn„ owing to the well-known loyalty of the
I -"3 Professi g that reed and in consquence of that
°Y alt c 9
Y these was no interference with the temporal cori-
ti4:4 of this country. He would next allude to the disposi-
of eetineed by the Government relative to the appointment
bott Roman Catholic bishop.- (Hear.) The Government
i stated it as their fixed resolve not to interfere in the
the of their bishops, but to leave all to the good sense of
ton °ye. who they knew would not sanction the consecra-
046°' PY persons who might be in any way suspected of
selt);adY• He believed that the Noblelord '(Lord Rus-
jot_ avowed that he had no intention to interfere with the
re,,trual machinery of the Roman Catholic religion ; and with
041,),:lt to that case, he should say that there were two points
be uleh be felt very strong, and by which he was resolved to
of Paled throughout that discussion. He meant the position
thcrtholic bishops in this country, and the constitution of
their church discipline, and their spiritual authority over
teed Own People. With regard to the former, he did not in-
•sey,
wto look to mere abstract questions of law; but he should
beer, ben he saw the Government declining to prosecute,
' eotie"se there were no legal precedents for such prose-
the Ts, that Roman Catholics were justifiable in recognising
exer•l'.lrisdiction of the Pope, and the Pope had a right to
Catholicse piritual and ecclesiastical authority over theßoman
that e of this country.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware
pro some Persons would consider such an (pinion as he then
isehaitlf Tatted to be at variance with the oath of supremacy,
°Li:ai
lie, as a Protestant Member, bad &ken, but to that
take e
should reply, that he was prepared, as before, to
waFTat oath with a clear and unsullied conscience, for,
hc"wnevelie did not mean to take refuge in words, he should,
Pope hara in explanation say, that he did not believe that the
one could any legal jurisdiction in this country, though no
did exist. deny that his spiritual and ecclesiastical authority
who differedHe was aware that many of his fellow-subjects,
fora long rom him in religious belief, had been proscribed
were eh nne but he was happy to say that those times
the Churctedo—(Hear, bear.) It was a well-known fact that
that that soc• ft Rome was an ecclesiastical Church, and
who claimed': Zama placed under the government of men,
Divi • • Med the hierachne Mission, and that those men consti-
hiktlea wan to-bey 0,1: the Church of Rome. Then if a pro-
OMereci to th
cse men ha tho discharge 9f

their opiscopal functions, their office would- be altogether in-
complete, and consequently the rites and ceremonies of the
Catholic Church would be totally neglected. He was aware
that it had been said, and would be again said, that there
was no necessity for bishops, as vicars-apostolic had
for the last 800 years, discharged the duty of bishor3 in this
country ; but it should be borne in mind that thos” Liahops

believi_that they have by divine institution a Pose

vern their own society ( Hear -he therefore t lieueht it
better that the c mcerns of the Rothan Catholic Church
should be governed by the ecclesiastical power of bishops,
which power actually exis s and cannot be denied, rather
than to be administered as they have been for the last :00
years, since the time of Benedict IV., under the guidance
and control of a Pope of Rome. He did not see any reason
why the canon law should not be administered by the Pope
in matters relevant to the Roman Catholic Church, although
the Noble Lard (Lord J. RusSell) stated 'it as his opinion,
after having examined the Acts by which the diocesan farm
of government had been exercised, that the introduction of
such forms and such canons was opposed to the rights and
constitution of this country.-( Hear.) What had the Pope
done ? As a foreign power, yet a spiritual head of the
Roman . Catholic Church, he had assumed the authority of
erecting sees, of filling those sees with his own nomination,
and of issuing authority by which diocesan bishops might
exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But then the Noble
Lord (Lord John Russell) had said that, for a subject of the
Crown of this country to assume a title, was opphsed to the
rights and prerogative of the Sovereign, who was solely in-
vested, by her authority, to make such a partition of this
country. 'He should add, that the Noble Lord did not confine
himself to the creation' of ecclesiastical sees, but he went
so far as to bring a charge against those prelates of parcel-
ling out the territorial districts of the country ; and in sup-
port of his (Lord John Russell's) assertion, he stated that
the public law was on his side, and that that public law
prohibited the Pope from dividing the country with the
Sovereign. But be (Mr. Peel) should say that that public
law guaranteed the right of communication between the
Pope, on the one side,. and the priests and laity, on
the other.-(Hear, hear.) He saw a very great and
enormous evil in any legislation of that kind ; for if
it proceeded a little tarther, the act would be stigmatised
as infamous. st- (Cheers.) Again, the Attorney-General
stated that the consequences of that Bill would be to pre-
vent synodical action, which he inferred, from the address
of Cardinal Wiseman, as likely to be introduced into this
country, but he (Mr. Peel) fur his part, doubted very much
if the measure would have the effect of preventing synods,
as the Roman Catholic prelates, priests, and laity, would
evade the provisions of the Bill by every possible means. It
had been also said that the feeling on the part of Ireland
relative to that measure had been very strong, as being an
attempt to deprive them of the long-enjoyed rights of
canon law, and, on the other hand, the Noble Lord the
Member for Bath (Lord Ashley) said that the avowed
object of establishing diocesan divisions and episcopal
jurisdiction was the inteoaeetion of 'the canon laws, and
the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) had on that occasion
brought to light a number of passages from that code
of the most, disparaging char cter, though Lord Stowell,
Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, while presiding in
London, passed the highest etriogium on this code of canon
laws. When the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) stated that the
canon law was opposed to the common and statute law of Ibis
country, he should recollect that there was a considerable
difference between the canon law and the ecclesiastical law
of this country. When the Hon. and Learned Member for
Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) said that our Consuls-General exer-
cised a jurisdiction over the British subjects in Turkey, by
virtue of the treaties with Turkey and the Levant Company,
he should have considered that the Pope did not at any time
give or receive diplomatic correspondence, and that there-
fore, there was no analogy whatever between the two cases,
and he would add, moreover, that the code of canon law
only prevailed over those Roman Catholics who paid vo-
luntary obedience to it, for there could be no coercion
in a free country such as this.-(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He deeply regretted thst the bishops of the Roman Ca-
tholic Church in Ireland should have assembled for the
purpose of depriving the children of their diocese of
that beneficent education which a paternal Government
afforded them. If it were the wish of the Government to
prevent synodical action, he considered that some other
means should be adopted besides the present measure, and
he should also add, that he did not wish to trust the
security of the Protestant religion to a mere Act of Parlia-
ment, but he relied on the power of ' controversy, on the
good sense of the people, and on the belief that the tenets
of the Church of Rome cannot be upheld on the warranty
of Scripture, and more especially on the attachment of the
people to their creed and their clergy, as has been strongly
exemplified in the building of churches, and the erection
and endowment of schools, and other beneficent acte ; and
lie felt assured that the Church could not only main-
tain her ground without artificial aid or support, but Viet she
could even make way against her enemies. In his opinion
the Church of England had nothing to fear from the Church
of Rome, for every man had a right to' judge by his own
interpretation of the Scripture, which ever renders that
Church unassailable and impregnable against any assault.
He should, therefore say, that there was no reason not to
grant toleration to all religious denominations.-(Cheers.)
Sir J. DUKE felt under great disadvantage in addressing
the House at all times; and that disadvantage was certainly
not lessened on the present occasion by his rising as he did
immediately after the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had
just sat down. Indeed, had he consulted merely his own
feelings he would gladly have contented himself with giving
a silent vote on the present question; but, having the
honour to represent au important constituency, which had
been referred to by the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr.
Bright), he felt it necessary to say a few words with which he
hoped the House would indulge him. But, before lie referred
to the observations of the Hon. Member for Manchester, he
begged to say that something like an unfair censure had
been cast upon the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment for the letter which he had addressed to the Bishop of
Durham. It had been said that that letter had been the
means of occasioning the meetings which had taken place in
London and throughout the country, and that the Noble
Lord, being in want of "political capital," found it necessary
to call upon the people to come forward and resist Papal
aggression. It had also been alleged that that
letter was published on, the day before the sth
of November, in order to excite the city on the oc-
casion of the annual processions. Now, he (Sir J. Duke)
happened to be abroad at the time that letter was publisheo,
but, on his return, he took the opportunity of going over the
public papers to see what course the City of London and the
public had taken upon this important question in his ab-
s ence ; and he found that, so early as the 14th of October,
nearly the whole of the newspapers of the capital had united
in calling upon the public and the Government to resist the
Papal aggression. He found articles to the same effect in
those papers on the 21st and 22d of October. On the 23d
appeared a letter from a gentleman at Exeter, desiring to
know whether the Noble Lord and the Government sup-
ported the appointment of Dr. Wiseman. Oa the 25th the
clergy of Westminster met, and addressed the Bishop of
London. On the 30th the inhabitants of the important
parish of St. George, in the metropolis, met for the same
object. On the 31st the London clergy also met, and ad-
dressed the Bishop. On the 28th a reply appeared to the
Exeter letter, from the secretary of the Premier, to the effect.
that neither directly nor indirectly had the Noble Lord sanc-
tioned the appointment of Dr. Wiseman. On the 2d of No-
vember he found that the great parish of Marylebone, in
vestry assembled, protested against the Papal aggtession.
Ile found also that the parish of Stepney met about the
same time, and that similar meetings were held at Gloucester,
Canterbury, Dover, l)cal, Southampton, Worcester, Reading,
and other places-all before the appearance of the Noble
Lord's letter.-(Hear, hear.) That letter appeared only on
the 7th of November, so that it was an error to say that it
was published on the 4th for the purpose of exciting the
public on the following day.-(Hear, hear.) On the 7th of
November took place the meeting of the Corporation of
London ; but he could assure the House that the Noble
Lord's letter had nothing to do with that meeting, which
was held on the usual day, and had been summoned a week
before.- (Hear.) Being a member of that corporation he was
unwilling to say anything about its proceedings, except to re-
mind the House that they had the high honour of approach-
ing the Sovereign on great and important occasions; and,
although he had been twenty years connected with the cor-
poration, he never remembered it availing itself of that privi-
lege except in the present instance-( Hear, hear)-and he
presumed that nothing but the consideration Ural it was a
case of unusual importance would have induced then to do so.
--(Hear, bear) But although he would say nothing more
of the proceedings of the corporation, he might be allowed
to refer to the great and importaut meeting of bankers, mer-
chants, and traders of the city of London.-( Hear, hear.)
Among other meetings which had taken place throughout
the country, there was one, he believed, of the enlightened
constituents of the Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roe-
buck), who had not only addressed the Queen, but had
passed a vote of thanks to the Noble ,Lord. - ( Hear, hear.)
Now, those meetings had been described as the result of in-
tolerance, ignorance, and bigotry. He (Sir J. Duke) did not
know whether that was the case or not; but he believed that
if those addresses to the Queen. had been petitions to the
House of Commons iu support of some favourite scheme of
free-trade policy. certain Hon. Members would have talked
loudly enough of the dignity of the ancient corporation of
London, the great weight of the merchants, bankers, and
traders of the first commercial city in the world, and the in-
telligent and irresistible voice of the country.-(Hear.) He
did not know what might be the result of this debate ; but he
was quite certain, that by whatever combination of parties
the measure might ultimately be defeated, the feeling of the
country would rally round the Noble Lord and his Govern-
ment, and, in the language of the magnificent speech with
which he had introduced the measure, would show them
that they were ready to resist the Papal aggression "'in all
points and with all their power."-(Hear, hear.) With re-
gard to the remarks which the Hon. Member for Manchester
(Mr. Bright) had made respecting the Rev. Dr. Russell, he
begged to say that he had known that Rev. Gentleman for
many years, and that a more upright, exemplary, and pious
clergyman could not ba found in the Church or country
-and, when he found his name mentioned as having had
recourse to or sanctioned the exactions which had taken
place in a meeting-house in his parish, he felt it due to him
to say, that he had no more to do with that transaction than
the Hon. Member himself; and that the persons who were
alone responsible for it were the parochial authorities acting
under a warrant from one of the magistrates of the city of
London, than whom he would venture to say there was no
set of men more kind or considerate in the discharge of such
delicate and difficult duties.-(gear, hear.)
• Mr. B. WALL wished to state to the House the reason
why he was about to take the unusual course of opposing
the introduction of a Government measure. A great deal
had been said about. the unanimity of feeling prevailing in
the country. Doubtless the meetings had been numerous,
and the public mind had been much excited, but the chief
advantage gained by the demonstration was that it had
elicited from all phrts of the country the value which yeas
attached to the rights of private judgment, and showed
how ready the people were to come forward when there was
the remotest idea of the Royal supremacy or prerogative being
irivaded. It ought not to be forgotten that in dealing with
Protestant states which had no. concordat the Pope could
only proceed in two ways-either by excommunicating or
ignoring them ; and of these ,two courses the Pope had
adopted the more gracious towards the. Noble Lord. He had
hoped that this Bill would have embodied the minimum of
intereference ; but after !homing to the speech of the At-
torney-General he was convinced that it amounted to the
maximum of persecution.-(:fin ironical cheer from Lord J.
Russell.) The more bold arid honest, the more true and
faithful the Catholic, the more bitter would the per•
secution be. It was the first aggressive Parliamentary mea-
sure since 1829, and was oppoesd to all the declarations
made by the First Minister. The Noble Lord, it seemed,
had changed his mind. Why, then, did he nor say as much
to his old friend and ally the Pope?- (Cheers and laughter.)
The Pope certainly could not, by any. possibility, conceive
from what had already been permitted in Ireland that his
appointment of bishops and archbishops and the establish-
ment of an hierarchy would cause to much surprise and in-
dignation to the Government. He felt bound to say that the
bishops of the Eetablished Church in this country had not in
opinion.
any interferedmay tThe
improperly
Memberipor
Ayrshirewith th e e
hadexpression
public
le
is
. county had not petitioned in favour of these measures of the
Noble Lord; but the Hon. Gentleman might have added the
important fact. that scarcely any of the Scottish counties
had petith ned Parliament upon the subject; and with re-
gard;to Tractarianism he might have stated also, that though
there were VIAVI is *timid IA which th 999 9P41194 were