The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-08 00:00:00

eitremaa

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1851.

The House of Commons met s eterday at a Quarter
to Pour o'clock.

Lord JoarIitUSSELL, in bringing forward the mea-
sure, to resist the Papal Aggression, entered into a long
historical detail of th. measures of resistancE' to Papal
encroachments which France, Austria, and other Roma❑
Catholic countries had found it expedient to adopt. In
England a Parliament, corn-po,cd exclusively of Roman
Catholics, had even in Rowan Catholic times, found
it necessary ti pasi the statute of Pramunire against
the introduction of Papal bulls into this country.

Those persona who thus would not allow any usurped
• were tOl beii,,rTrs in the

any title for any place or territory within
any portion of the United Kingdom, and this provisio❑
had been approved of by the Archbishop of Can.
terbury. Thus they prevented that which was a❑
insult to the Crown, an interference with the
rights of the Church, and an infringement on the
liberties of the country. By the second provision, these
persons would be prevented from deriving any benefit
from the trusts left to the Catholic body. Whatever
might be the ultimate result of this legislation, they were
not at present in a position to proceed further. The indi-
vidual who had taken upon himself to recommend these
measures to the POPE had it in his power to remove many
of these difficulties, and if he, a Prince of therßoman
Church, had any desire to promote the interests of the
Roman Catholics in this country, he would at once re-

nounce the title he had assumed. But if other
councils should prevail and be should instil hopes
of revenge and ambition into the Court of Rome, no
doubt a struggle would take take place. In that case
his (Lord John Russell's) course was clear. He
was for the fullest enjoyment of religious liberty,
but he was against any interference on the part of
Ecclesiastics in the civil affairs of the realm. In his own
Church he had always opposed any measure calculated
to encroach upon the civil supremacy in this realm. If
that was the case as regarded the Church of England, how
much stronger must be his opposition to any attempt on
the part of the Pope to establish supremacy in this realm.
In recent times there has been put forth from the Church of
Rome opinions abhorrent to every lover of civil and re•
ligious liberty. There were among the books prohi-
bited to be read by the Church of Rome such books as

Robertson's histories and Scapula's Lexicon. When he

saw such doings as these, his objections were aroused.
He drew a wide distinction between the Roman Catholic

doctrines and the Ultramontane doctrines. He there-
fore proposed that the House should resist the
introduction of the Ultramontane system. He

knew

that they were liable to be mis.

represented, that they might be accused of having

changed their opinions; but he had not charged

his, he still thought that Roman Catholics should

be alraitted to all civil• offices; the Acts exclud

ing them from office in the time of JAMES II

were rendered necessary, be?ause they could

not trust the:,,Sovereign. Under ELIZABETH, when they
had a Qu"en whom they could trust as they could now

—(Cheers)—no such exclusion was necessary, and he
felt that they were all the more powerful now for having

repealed those laws of exclusion. Ha said, in the words
of a Roman Cathol c Parliament. which had opposed
an attempted act of Papal aggression, that he would like
them oppose it with all his heart and all his power.—

(The Noble Lord then sat down amidst loud cheering.)
The House was suosequentiy addrtsst-d by Mr. ROE-
BUCK, Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL, Mr. DRUMMOND, Mr. E
B. ROCHE, Mr. MOORE, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. DISRAELI,
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, and Sir ROBERT Nulls, and the

debate on the motion of Mr. REYNOLDS was adjourned.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, last night, in moving for
leave to bring in a Bill "to prevent the assumption of
certain ecclesiastical titles in respect of places in the
United Kingdom," most ably vindicated her MA-
JESTY'S Government from the charge of being in-
clined to enter upon a reactionary or retrograde po-
licy. He clearly and distinctly pointed out the neces-
sity of the contemplated measure, by showing the true
character of the "aggression ;" that it was strictly
in keeping with the ancient pretensions of the Vatican

—pretensions which were so sturdily and resolutely
resisted by our Roman Catholic ancestors before the
Reformatioc, and that there is "no country in
Europe, however great or however small—no country
which values its own independence, upon which the
POPE would have attempted to pass the insult which
he has offered to this kingdom of England." Ile
strictly pursued the path indicated by the Royal
Speech at the opening of the session, exhibiting an
unflinching resolution " to maintain the rights of the
Crow❑ and the independence of the nation against all
encroachment, from whatever quarter it may proceed,
and at the same time to maintain unimpaired the re-
ligious liberty which is so justly prized by the people
of this country."

It is impossible to hope that the measure will pats
through the Legislature without encountering con-
siderable opposition from persons who entertain very
different views with respect to the Papal authority,
and the particular acts or assumptions that have led
to the introduction of the present Bill. It will excite
the indignation, and encounter resistance from the
extremes of either party—from those who consider
that any interference with what they believed to be
the undoubted prerogative of the PONTIFF is not
uncalled fur, but that
only unnecessary and
littleibtetteirs than rebellion mi
againsts ch i es- o ul se ,g i t i
mbeing
autho-
rity, and also from those who regard the
subject as affording a golden opportunity for the re-
imposition of those penal and restrictive laws that so
long encumbered the public statute- book, and con-
stituted a blot and stain upon the national escutcheon.
By both classes the Bill will he impeded in its pro-
gress; but, as we have already shown, for very dif-
ferent reasons. But it will, therefore, be no less
welcome to the moderate and reasonable members of
the body politic, who desire that which may be
considered strictly as a measure of defence, and not
of rtaliation—a vindication of the perfect inde-
pendence of the United Kingdom against the
claims or usurpations of any foreign prince, pre-
late, or potentate, and not of intolerance or

11 a.eo wee, it ne, the wane se
EDWARD HI.; and this was not confined to mere
spiritual affairs, as Mr. BOWYER said, but becaer.;e the
Roman Court sought to interfere in the ordinary
concerns between man end man. Thus ha had shown that
in the times of cur Roman Catholic ancestors there had
always been a consistent and he,believed a wise jealouey
of the interference of the Court of Rome.
When the recent aggression had been made,
the law officers of the Crown had been cunnsittd,
and they had given it as their opinion that according
to law the assumption of these titles was not illegal;
that the letter apostolic was contrary to law, but that
the law prohibiting the introduction of bulls from
Rome had not for a long time been put in force, and
this disuse of it would probably cause a prosecution to fail
Under these circumstances it was not thought
desirable to institute a prosecution, besides he felt
a great repugnance to prosecute persons for doing
that which had so long been permitted, with
out any notice being taken of it. No doubt
arose as to the propriety of making a fresh statutory
enactment. They might enact a declaratory enact-
ment, reviving the old law, or they might adopt the
course of enacting that no Bull should have cur-
rency until it had been submitted to the civil power.
According to the statutes of Richard 11. the introduction
of Bulls from Rome was a grave offence; there was like-
wise a statutory provision against such an introduc
tion in the Act 13th Elizabeth. The penalties imposed
by that statute had been repealed, but the introduction
of such Bulls was not thereby rendered lawful. The
objection to the first course was that it was vague and
to the second that it would involve the Government in
constant discussions with the Roman Catholic body, and
that it would be a great evil to introduce such an irri-
tating topic into Parliamentary debate. Therefore the
Government had thought it best to adopt neither of
these courses, but while on the one side they did not
relax any power at present given them by law, they
did not on the other propose any which might lead to
further debate. He now came to the measure which he
was about to propose. On introducing the Catholic
Relief Act, Sir ROBERT PEEL had proposed that the
titles of English Prelates should not be assumed by the
Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, and had intro-
duced a clause in the Act to prohibit such assumption.
In the following year, in a pastoral address, the Catho-
lic Prelates of Ireland declared, in language which con-
trasted strongly with the language recently used by
Dr. CULLEN, that the Sovereign and the Legislature
were entitled to the gratitude of those Prelates, and it
would be well if Archbishop CULLEN, and Archbishop
I.I.IIALE, would refer to the language there used, and to
consider if the example then set them was not worthy
of imitation. It was thought, and he believed not with-
out foundation, that one reason for the change from
vicar apostolic to bishops, was to enable the
bishops to exercise control over large endowments, which
were in the hands of Catholic trustees. Be propu,eci,
therefore, that no such titles should be permitted to be
assumed by these bishops, and that all property lett to or
given to such persons under such titles should be
null and void, and forfsited to the Crown,
with power to the Crown to appoint trustees
to administer such property. In many cases persons
who had enj )yeti property under these trusts had been
deprived sf the use of it by these pre.ates; and he pro-
posed to introduce measures to guard the Roman Catholic
laity against such aggression. The question of the conside-
ration of the means which had been employed to procure
these grants of property he did not prepose to deal
with. He propasod to prohibit the assumption o