The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-21 00:00:00

MARCH 21, 1851.

Archbishop Murray will result even if you pass the Bill in its
amended torm.—',lfear.) The Solicitor General now declares '
that there has been an invasion of the prerogative of the
Crown and liberty of the subject.—(Hear, hear.) I answer
if what has been done is illegal why do you not appeal to the
courts of law?—(Cheers.) With respect to the division
of the country into districts, we have seen for a long
time past arrangements made for ordaining priests and
exercising spiritual jurisdiction by vicars-apostolic in
this country, and by a hierarchy in Ireland.—(Hear,
hear.) I am not aware that these territorial divisions
confer any temporal power. Since nonconformity has
ceased to be illegal, and Anglican bishops of our own
Church no longer exercise power over the whole of the in-
habitants of their district, but over such only as are within
the pale of their own Church—there is no jealousy of episco-
pal interference on the part of nonconformists.—(Hear.)
My Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the city of
Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) has let out the real truth. It is thi.t
there is a Roman Catholic bishop's throne established side by
side with the throne of the Anglican bishop.—( Hear, hear. )
That is the real reason of all this special anger.—(Hear,
hear.) And you say, besides, in enumerating your objec-
tions, that there is something of a foreign influence govern-
ing this Roman Catholic Church. Now that has been dis-
cussed often and often before.—( Hear, hew%) It was
weighed well in the balance and found wanting, when we
were passing the Emancipation Act.—(Cheers.) It, then,
you question the political tendencies of the Roman Catholic
Church, and should come to a decision this night on the
grounds that the Church of England is in danger, I say vcu
are undertaking legislation which will neither satisfy ',hat
doubt nor remove that danger. For if you commence
thus, you must go further. You must reverse the principles
of the Toleration Act, you must repeal the Emancipation Act
itself, and then .1 warn them, let the t)issenters of England
look to themselves.—(Cheers.) You must legislate, it you
legislate at all, with that spirit, with that object, and with
that motive.—(Cheers.) But something is said vaguely
about synods. We are told that there is great danger from
synods, and that, if we are wise, the synodical action of
the prelacy will be put an end to. Now, allow me to ask,
are you quite clear, here, as to your interference? Since
the legal and constitutional right of public meeting exists in
Great Britain and Ireland, show me how you can prevent
substantially the meeting of the hierarchy being organized,
considering the spiritual character and power which would
always surround such an assembly, with all the effect of in-
fluencing, to the utmost possible extent, the conduct of those
who are the members of that church.—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.") My Noble Friend complained of the Synod
of Thurles, that it had interfered with the question of land-
lord and tenant, and that it had condemned the Irish col-
leges. I regret that this was so. Obviously no person
here can feel a more lively interest in the success of these
colleges than I do. But I say—and this was suggested in
the admirable speech of my lion. and Learned Friend the
Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) a speech
which 1 can but follow—that if there is to be any assem-
bling of the hierarchy of Ireland, and they are to discuss
any subject whatever, I can see none more germane to
their functions, none more legitimately falling within
their supervision, than this question—is the people of Ireland
to be educated in these colleges? (Cheers.) But, then, the
Roman Catholic prelacy and the Roman Catholic clergy in
tervene in regard to subjects of a temporal nature. Well, an-
swering this, I may say I think 1 remember, during the
Anti-Corn-law agitation, a meeting at Manchester of the
Dissenting clergy— (Loud cheers)—convened from every
part of the United Kingdom. They came to resolutions at
this meeting which were very important resolutions. They
were returned to this convention from their respective dis-
trirts as the delegates of the views of their respective con-
gregations ; and their object was, in which they succceeded,
to use their utmost influence against the existing laws in
regard to the food of the people.—( Much cheering.) Then I
say that if clergymen are to meet, I am not prepared to le-
gislate for the purpose of imposing restrictions on their meet-
ing. I am satisfied that, it you are once embarked in this
course, you will be led step by step, whatever the Hon. and
Learned Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) may
contend to the contrary, until you have been induced to de-
stroy not only religious liberty, but civil liberty also.—
(Cheers.) Now, I have treated this Bill, hitherto, as a real
and formidable measure. But it has been
.changed, and it
stands much mutilated from its original proportions. When
my Noble Friend at the head of the Government rose, in in-
troducing this Bill, I listened to him with admiration, and
with that respect which his talents always command; and
as he proceeded, occupying such high ground, and laying
his foundations so deep, I certainly trembled for the result,
and shuddered as I imagined what was to follow the great
oration. I said to myself (tantane animis ealestibus ire?)
how is this to end—is he about to propose the
repeal of the Act of Emancipation? Well, the speech was a
great speech ; the measure is comparatively small. Much
disappointment ensued, anger excited; and not many hours
had elapsed before the Attorney-General rose and assiduously
endeavoured to magnify the measure, and to show that it was
neither tolerant nor harmless, that it did strike at synodical
action, and that if it did not altogether destroy it, it did at
all events tend to intercept, the power of granting bequests
and beneficial interests in succession to the Roman Catholic
prelacy. In short, the Attorney-General made an elaborate
effort to demonstrate that it was generally a most formidable
Bill. After this, too much being proved, the Government
became horrified at the spectre they themselves had raised;
they saw the consequences of their creation, and they fled.
The Noble Lord, in justifying the retreat, said emphati-
cally, and said truly, and fortunate it is that there does
prevail in all cases this restriction upon statesmen—" When
I ask to prohibit what I wish to prohibit I am compelled
not to allow what I do not wish to disturb." That is a
true description of a difficulty; and it is one of my
principal reasons for objecting to legislation of this kind.
You are, no doubt, in a dilemma.—(Hear, hear.) If you
cut down your measure to a minimum, you run a great
danger; and though it may be supposed, it has been most
unjustly supposed, that I have any feeling towards Rome, I
say I should be ashamed to see the weighty legislative
power of this country brought down from its efficiency to
inefficiency, and laid prostrate at the feet of Rome. On the
other hand, if you seek to escape that, and to render your
measure effective, then, I contend, if you do not fail, you will
embark in a course of legislation which will be neither more
nor less than a struggle with the spiritual authority of Rome,
until, as I said before, step by step you will be led to the
very point you surrendered in 1829, and driven to the enact-
ment of a penal code with all its restrictions. This, there-
fore, is the dilemma; impotence on your part is disgraceful;
and vigour, in my opinion, is dangerous I say dangerous,
distinctly; I can ill dissemble it. I think that danger, as it
relates to Ireland, is the danger of civil war. (Loud cries of
" Hear," and " No, no.") I cannot retract, the words; and is

that an empty threat? , Look back to 1829. A tried and
firm statesman, certainly the firmest man that, within
our day, has been at the head of the Government of this
country, declared to the house of Lords deliberately that
he had seen more war abroad than any man then living,
seen all its horrors and triumphed in all its excesses, that of
all wars what was most to be dreaded was civil war; and he
put the alternative to the House of Lords, either make this
concession or prepare for that hideous alternative of civil
war.— (Cheers.) That, after all, is the question still. But,
it is said, the feelings of the people of England
have been outraged ; and the language used by the Pope
and by his servants has been offensive to English indepen-
dence. I will not here follow the Hon. Member for the
city of Dublin (Mr. J. Reynolds) into any artistic compa-
ris of the phrases used by the bishops of the Roman Ca-
tholic Church, with the bishops of the Anglican Church.
Assuredly the complaint as to the language used is some-
what superfluous. It is as if this were to happen—a parable
s mewhat apposite :—A labourer accidentally jostles me
in the highway. I instantaneously turn round and
knock him down. I knock his hat off and
trample it under foot. I roll it in the gutter.
I bespatter him with mud. I set the boys on
to host him and to pelt him ; and, out of breath, with
anger and with exertion, I lastly call on the police, and give
him in charge for the offence he has committed against me.
We have had acrimonious language here to-night with re-
spect to the Roman Catholic Church, and Hon. Gentlemen
who rise and express themselves in the heat of debate, may
have their excuses. But the prelates of the English Church
have used language of which great complaint has been made
deliberately in addressing their respective clergy. I think
they ought to remember that that religion which they so de-
nounce is the religion, after all, of a great maj ,rity of Chris-
tendom. Eminent prelates ought, at least, not to forget that
it ii the religion which tempered the genius of Fenelon,
which warmed the eloquence of Massillon, which touched
with fire the tongue of Bossuet, and which inspired the
tolerant pen of Pascal.—(Cheers.) I trust that I am not
trespassing too far on the attention of the House.—(En-
couraging cheers.) I speak at this length only because it is
necessary, in self-justification, to state freely and frankly all
th , reasons which have influenced me.—(Cheers.) Now,
Sir, it will be remembered that I was one of those who
wholly objected to the appropriation clause. I did so for
the reason that I did not think it was either right or desir-
able, or practically politic, had there been no other higher
considerations, to strip the Protestant Church of Ireland of
its property, merely with a view of endowing the Roman
Catholic Church. And I will say now, whatever may have
been the policy of such an endowment at a former period,
that that opportunity has gone by.—(Bear.) Ton can be-
stow upon them, the people of Ireland, but sl,ght advantages
in the shajee of endowment of their clergy; but just in pro-
portion as you cannot satisfy them in that respect, I think
the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, whether laity or
clergy, if this be a matter of feeling, if it be reduced to a
question of feeling between them and the people of
.England,
are entitled to very peculiar consideration. ( rhe Right Hon.
Gentleman here proceeded to quote a passage from a letter of
Knox to Lord Castlereagh, which he described as equal,
in eloquence, to anything from Burke, descriptive of
the respective and relative positions of the Protestant
and Roman Catholic churches in Ireland. The Right Hon.
Gentleman spoke in so low a tone of voice while reading the
letter that we were only enabled to gather detached sen-
tences.) I believe that the Roman Catholic Church in Ire-
land, the " church of the vanquished," as described in the
letter I have quoted from, has a moral claim upon England,
and I have always held that, in the circumstances in which
they were placed, peculiar delicacy with respect to the peo-
ple of Ireland is at all events due from the Legislature of this
country.—(Cheers.) Now, as to the substance of the Bill. I
look first to the names on the back of it; and am I better
satisfied with what I find here? What is the first name I
see? The name of Russell.—(Hear, hear.) Is this the Rus-
sell chosen by the city of London as the champion of reli-
gious liberty ? (Cheers and laughter.) The Russell, whose
name will go down to posterity as identified with th,everlel:
peal of the Test and Corporation Act, and who,
awiythn now
proved principles and still nobly daring,.
striving to unrivet the last fetter of persecution' swhiche still
hangs upon the Jews?—(Cheers.) What is the next? The
heers. Is
name of Grey. Who is he?—(Laughter
andwho sacrificed
this the nephew of that patriotic Nobleman
the ambition of a life, and spent the flower of
and religious
liberty, youth in
the defence of the great principleof civil
liberty, more especially in the assertion
eolfzitghhet Hon.sGoefnttlhee-
Roman Catholics?—(Lend cheers.)l
oquence, like him in his
in
man is like him—like him
suavity, like him, I mightaamddeb ,isin his brilliance ; and sadly
tthis
do I regret to see his n
too, softe back of
Romilly is there Bill.
the
(Hear, hear) The name,
invariable advocate of civil and religious liberty.—(Hear.)
el f. It has bn botched.
Besides this Bill is not
Anwdl thereormed is a reason for that. his
—(Great cheering.)
Right lion. Friends on that bench opposite would not
be worthy of the name and character of the friends of
civil and religious liberty if they were adepts in framing
penal laws— (Loud cheers) —and it shows their want of per-
sonal skill in this class of legislation; and God forbid they
should ever become expert and dexterous in such a craft.—
(Renewed cheers.) My Noble Friend at the head of the
Government, in a late speech, referred to his former allies,
friends, and compatriots—among theta to Grattan that
noble spirit fled to join with Fox, Canning, Wilberforce, and
I ask my Noble Friend, if in his conscience be really believes
that one of those men, who all cordially agreed in the prin-
ciple of the Emancipation Act afterwards passed, would have
approved of this Bill?—(Great cheers.) And if my Noble
Friend can say be thinks they would have so approved it,
then I appeal from the dead to the living. Would Plunket
have voted for that Bill?—(Loud cheers.). Would Brougham
have vote I for that Bill ?—(Cheers renewed.) Does Den-
man, I ask, approve of this Bill ?—(Loud cheers.) I would
he were here to answer that question.—(Cheers.) Then
there is the great historian of the revolutionary Period' a man
deeply imbued with Protestant principles—I ask, would
Blacaulay approve pf thin Diu? I hay, trie4 it by the evi-