The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-25 00:00:00

EXPENSES OF PROSECUTIONS BILL.

At the request of Mr. DEEDES,
Sir G. GREY agreed to postpone the report of this
Bill from Wednesday to Wednesday week, as he thought
it advisable that the several alterations proposed in the
clauses should be in the hands of Members some days
before they were considered in the House, and he should
therefore move that the report be brought up on Wed-
nesday week,—Motion agreed to.
THE EASTER RECESS.
Lord R. GROSVENOR, said, that as they had now
rewhed the last week in March, it would bo for the
convenience of the House to know what arrangement
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed
as to the adjournment for the Easter recess. Last year,
when he had asked a similar question of the Noble
Lord; he stated his reasons for proposing that the
House should adjourn on the Friday next before Good
Friday, and his conviction that by following that plan
the business of the House would be better proceeded
with. He was afraid that, from the state of public busi-
ness this year, the Noble Lord would not accede to his
proposition; but he would ask the Noble Lord whether,
in deference to the wishes of many Members of the
[louse, and those whose leisure depended upon its sit-
tings, and in consideration of the small amouct of busi-
ness it had been found practicable to transact in the
week immediately preceding Easter Sunday, commonly
called Passion Week, he would move the adjournment
of the House for the recess on Friday, the 11th of April
next.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that, looking to the present
state of the public business, he did not think ho could
expect that the House should adjourn on Friday, the
11th of April. At the same time, he did not think it
very desirable to keep the House sitting on the Thurs-
day before Good Friday—(Hear, hear)—and ho thought
therefore the House might adjourn on the Tuesday, or
Wednesday, until the following Monday se'nnight.—
(Hear, hear.) Ho should propose that after the 11th of
April the House on alternate Thursdays should take
orders of the day in precedence of notices of motion.
MERCANTILE MARINE BILL.

In reply to Mr. HUME,
Mr. LABOUCHERE stated that he had never at any
time denied that he thought the details of this Bill were
susceptible of improvement; but at the same time he
must say that he intended to adhere firmly to the prin-
ciple of the Bill. He should, however, bring in the
amended Bill in such time as would enable Members to
duly consider its provisions with a view to its becoming
law before the House rose for the prorogation.
MISS TALBOT.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that there was a subject to
which he was exceedingly desirous of drawing the
attention of the House for a few moments, and this
request he made as a personal favour to himself.
It was to every man of honourable feeling an object
wet( worthy of regard to retain his standing in that
House by stating there that which he knew to be true.
--(Hear.) There, as well as elsewhere, he was always
particularly careful to say nothing of which he was not
perfectly cognizant. Feeling this reiponsibility, he was
particularly struck with the bold assertion of the Hon.
Member for the city of London, and with the still more
bold contradiction of the lion. Member for Marylebono
(Sir B. Hall), when he asserted that Miss Talbot was
not and never had been a postulant.—(Hear, hear.)
He now deliberately repeated that assertion—(Hear,
hear, cheers, and laughter)—that Miss Talbot was not,
and never had been, a postulant. He had it from the
bishop who superintended the convent in which it was
said Miss Talbot was immured, that she was not at the
present moment a postulant.—(Hear, hear.) He did not
mean to impugn the assertions of Mr. Craven Berkeley
or any of his friends in that House. He believed that
which they said they believed to be true.—(Loud cries
of " Hear, hear," and ironical cheers.) Nevertheless he
was wrong.—(Renewed laughter, and ironical cheers.)
He was bound to say that the Hon. Member for Oxford
had treated him with all courtesy, but he had never re-
ceived the letter which had been addressed to him, and
he should therefore content himself with again asserting
that Miss Talbot was not, and never had been, a postu-
lant.—(Hear, hear, and ironical cheers.)
Sir B. HALL said that it appeared from the speech of
the Hon. Member for Dublin that one man had
said one thing and another that which was totally
opposite to the assertion of the first, and yet
that both might be perfectly right.—(Loud laughter and
cheers.) All he had to say was that what be (Sir B.
Hall) had asserted respecting Miss Talbot he had from
one of the Hon. Member's own bishops.—(Hear, heat,
and laughter.) He had believed the bishop in preference
to Mr. Reynolds, and he was sorry for it.—(Laughter.)
THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.

A large number of petitions having been presented
' for and against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,
Mr. W. FAGAN, who, as a processor of the Roman
Catholic religion, which had bet 11 so strenuously assailed
by different speakers, claimed to be heard with the same
attention as those who had been its assailants. In re-
ference to the speech of the Hon. Member for West
Surrey, he rejoiced that he was not successful in catch-
ing the Speaker's eye after that speech; and approach-
ing the question now in a different spirit, he regretted
that any Member of that House, not alone should use
such language, but that he should suffer such ideas to
enter into his mind. It was hard that any Hon. Mem-
ber could be suffered to address such language to the
; religion of Members of that House. It was, however,
only a sample of what took place all through the land.
The legislstieu of the Noble Lord was productive only
of rancour and bitterness of feeling in England and Ire-
land. He congratulated his countrymen and his con-
' stituents upon not placing such men as the Hon. Mem-
ber in the Government. It was not his intention to
repeat the indecent language made use of by the
Honourable Member with respect to those ladies, many
of them belonging to the first families of the country;
and in reference to the convent of which more particular
mention had been made by the Honourable Member
for Dublin, he (Mr. Fagan) bad a personal interest
in it, as his daughter was under its roof; and he could
state from competent authority—and he did state it
to Mr. Berkeley on the evening the petition was pre-
sented—that Miss Talbot was not there as a " postu-
lant." There were but two modes of entering into a
convent—that of a boarder or school girl, and that of a
postulant. Miss Talbot having been previously edu-
cated in a convent could not be received as a boarder,
nor did she wish to be placed under the same restric-
tions, and when her relations were leaving the country,
for her stepfather was no relative, she applied to be re-
ceived as a postulant. The nunnery did not desire to
receive her as a postulant because of her large fortuue,
but they were undesirous to deny her a temporary resi-
dence. The fact was, therefore, that she was received
as a postulant for the occasion, and at this moment the
Rev. Dr. Doyle, her guardian, was actively engaged in
providing her with a refuge. Leaving that part of the
subject, he (Mr. Fagan) would refer to the general
question under discusion. He agreed with the Hon.
Member for Oldham that the present aggression arose
altogether from an undisguised hatred of Popery, and he
regretted to perceive that many Hon. Members of the
House took part in that passion. Hon. Members had
supported the Bill, because by introducing the canon law
it gave the Pope a power of interfering in the temporal
as well as the spiritual concerns of the people of Eng-
land, but the contrary was the case, and after the Ca-
tholics in the House had denied it it was too hard to
have it thrust upon them by lawyers. The Roman Ca-
tholics of this country hold with the declaration of the
French bishops, or Galilean Church, drawn up by 80.%
suet in 1682, that the Pope had no power except over the
spiritual concerns of the country. Hon. Gentlemen as-
serted that the canon law would give the pope power
England, but
over the temporal affairs of the people of
no one had ventured to prove it. The Solicitor-General,
bad
it was true, aro, d that the Roman Catholic Priestsof sue
d a power
a civil status, and that as the bishop
had
a temporal
hti
,er)
hundredfold pension over the priests, he had thereforea General,
power; and the Attorney-General
ps to appoint to
power of the Roman Catholic
bishops
h often claimed
ity, thoug
livings was contested by the la
gislauon founded
.hhdo argued that the
by them. He protested against Y
House woulld be surprised to
on ignorance of facts. The
ilthe Pew
,greater than tuder
ers of suspending
hear that under vicars-apostolic
clergymen at will were a in proof, refer to
the authority of bishops. w°
aids
Donnell, of Birmingham--a
the case of the Rev. Mr. who, without any cause as-
much-respected clergymandnt somewhere else. Another
signed, was removed an
case was that of the Rev-
Mr. Hearne, who was removed
without cause assigned ; and such
were the feelings of th
from Manchestero
Roman Catholics there, that
receive
a time to spiritual aid from
they refused for
Thesesoma
things could not have taken
his successor. He contended that the objections
place under
establishmenthops-
of a hierarchy and the canon
to the The object of a normal system of
law were untenable.
was owing to what h had
• l discipline e stated
ecclesiastics
—it was owing
to the rapid increase of Roman Catholics
heir numbers now reached nearly a mil-
in England. 'r
lion, and it was necessary to have spiritual teachers in
sufficient number and
with sufficient protection, which
was not given under the vicar-apostolic system,
but which was given by the episcopal system. It was
this reason that had induced the Romaa Catholic clergy
to petition the Pope for a hierarchy. He agreed with
the Bishop of Beverley, and thought ho was right in
saying, that had matters been left as they were the
id
clergy won be in a worse position. But Cardinal
Wiseman, the Archbishop of Westminster, was now
freed from the power of the Pope; before this time he
was the slave of the Pope.—(Hear.) With respect to
synodal action, Cardinal Wiseman had not yet been able
to call the Roman Catholic clergymen together to esta-
blish schools and other institutions, because be was
anxious to avoid giving offence to the people of Eng-
land; but he had no doubt the time would soon arrive
when a canon law suited to this country would be in-
troduced and established. With respect to the
canon law, he asserted, with the exception of those
canons relating to faith and doctrine, which
were founded on revealed truth, that no layman or priest
was bound by any canon laws which were opposed to
the municipal laws of the country.—(Hear.) All they
had heard about the abominable canons of the olden
time had nothing whatever to do with the Roman Ca-
tholic religion of the present day. In old times the
Popes had assumed temporal authority and powers
which they were not justified in assuming—but those
times had passed, never to return, and the present times
had totally changed. With reference to the alleged un-
eh u-able character of the Roman Catholic system, he
said that applied to the faith only, but not to the disci-
pline of the Church—that was to be stilted to times, cir-
cumstances, and countries, and, if mecessary, to be al-

tered conformably. It was ridiculous to talk of the bull
In Ccence Domini, and other things, which Roman Ca-
tholics repudiated as much as Protestants. He contended
that this bull had never been in force in Ireland, and
had in tact been objected to by every Roman Catholic
power. If the bull were in force, scarcely anything
would be at rest in any Catholic state. He denied the
accuracy of the statement of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Oxford relative to the encroach-
ments of Popery, and the assertion that if
you gave the Pope "an inch he would take an
ell." The Hon. and Learned Member bad referred to
Sardinia, but he denied there was an encroachment on
the part of the Pope in that country. There was 5
concordat between the Pope and the Sardinian King,
and it was not until an attempt was made to break
through the conditions of the concordat that ill feeling
commenced. As to the refusal to administer the sacra-
ments of the Church to Count Roma, he asserted that
no churchman dare refuse the sacraments, except in
cases where it would be useless to administer them"""
namely, in cases of impenitence. In the case of Maria
Manning the rites were not refused (we understood) by
a Protestant clergyman, although Mrs. Manning refused
to acknowledge her guilt. No Roman Catholic clergy'
man would have dared to have done the same. The
Solicitor-General had declared that this Bill would pre-
vent the establishment of a hierarchy and synodi cal
action in England. He would tell the Right Honourable
Gentleman neither this nor any other Bill would effect
those purposes. They had failed to do it in days of
persecution, arid how dare they, then, to assert they
would do it now?—(Hear.) Let him, therefore, not be
told that this Bill would prevent synodal action. They
might encumber their statute-books with laws, but ape-
dal action and the canon law, in spite of all that could
be &fie, would still be the action and the law
covers-
ing the Roman Catholic Church in England. With re-
spect to legal opinions as to the effect of the first clause,
he believed that any act done by a Roman Catholic pre-
late under a prohibited title would be null and void under
the first clause of the proposed Act; and as be consi-
dered this was not an extension of the Act of 1829, but
an attempt to impose new penalties, he should resist the
Bill. So far from putting the lingfish and Irish bishops
on the same footing, as pretended, the reverse would be
the case. The Bequests Act recognised the Irish Roman
Catholic bishops, and in consequence of that the judge!
of Ireland, and among them Sir Edward Sugden, had
considered the prohihitory clause in the Emancipation
and
Act put aside, and had recognised the titles of the
bishops. This new Bill, however, upset all this,
placed the Irish Roman Catholic bishops in the same
situation as they were before the Bequests Act was
passed. The people of Ireland looked on the measure!,
even in its mildest form, as an insult to the religion of
one-third of her Majesty's subjects. He was sure th
Noble Lord was not aware of the excitement and fer-
ment this Act had created in Ireland. He could not bare
believed, after four years of depression and not bare
the Irish
starvation, that it was possible to rouse
people to any exertion; but their religion was concern!:
in this question, and on that subject they were sensitisv.
and exciteable. In his district the Irish people a
called on him to oppose every Government measure, 11..
matter what the principles involved in them; but tie could
not subscribe to that resolution consistently with
respect due to himself and to that public character be
was anxious to sustain.—(Hear, hear.) If the measure
f
were passed the Noble Lord would lose the support ow
the people of Ireland; and the Noble Lord,ll
seeing
parties were made up in that House, must know fell,wer
he could not sustain his party without Ireland.--(uee
hear.) Until this change in the ecclesiastical system e
the Roman Catholics in England was contemplated, no
the
,person was more popular at the Court of Rome than
Noble Lord, but since then the Noble Lord had become
most unpopular. Dr. Ullathorne, the Bishop of fir:
tningham, had stated that he wished a Bishop
London to be appointed, but his proposal W 0;
I
been rejected. And with respect to the creation
of a Bishop of St. David's, he could only' say ,be
believed the Papal brief bad been wrongly translaseu'e-;
(Hear.) The Noble Lord (Palmerston) had expressb
his surprise that no communication had been wade 151 a
the Pope of Rome to Downing-street. But bow cou
that take place when the Pope was not recognised either. -
in his temporal character or his spiritual character herer
It would not have comported with the Pope's dignity to
Rela-
tions Bill had ignored his existence, even as a
have sent to Downing-street after the Diplon3atic
spiritu
power. He was surprised to find how any statesmsr!
could come down and say that the Pope had meditatea
an insult to the Crown or the people of England. The.
Government had no good ground for the introduction of
such a measure as the present; but the Catholics had
good ground for wishing for the establishment of •
hierarchy. He opposed the Bill, because it was a retro•
grade movement in legislation, an infringement of the
Catholic Emancipation Act, and a departure from the
broad principle of civil and religious liberty.—(Chser3')
Mr. SMYTHE wished to state to the House the rea-
sons why he should vote against what he could not help
calling a sham Bill of sham pains and sham penalties
against a sham aggression.—(Cheers from the opponents
of th,-, Bill.) Entertaining so strong an opinion on ad'
qua lion, be was not surprised at the tone adopted by
the Hon. Member for Cork, who had just sat down, be-
cause, after all, what were our relations with the Roman
Catholic Church of Ireland? It was idle to shrink or
evade that question. It could not be denied that within
the last ten years the State had contracted a morganatic
or left-handed marriage with the Roman Catholic Church
of Ireland by means of the Bequests Act and the grant
to Maynooth, and that it now sought to insult the Irish .
and to repudiate the not illegitimate offspring.—(Hear.)
In a far different spirit had the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Colonies acted, whose-far-seeing and courageous
view, overlooking the miserable scruples of pedantic
uniformity, had not disdained to affbrd Catholic prelates
in our colonies the titles which Mr. Pitt would have
granted them; and who, knowing from the archives of
his office t hat we governed St. Lucia in the spirit of its
French laws, and Trinidad by its Spanish laws,
allowed the Cetholic prelates in those colonies
the titles which their Church awarded to them-
In Malta there were a Catholic population, Ca-
tholic laws, and Catholic prelates. In Australia
there were Catholic congregations and Catholic)
bishops. Why, therefore, in Ireland, should there not
also be Catholic bishops to Catholic flocks? Why not
also in England?—(Hear.) What the Pope had really
done in this country was to accord territorial title with
no territorial government. Cardinal Wiseman had no-
thing more than the title of Archbishop of Westminster.
He no more possessed the territorial government °`
Westminster than the King of Sardinia and the Two Si-
cilies possessed Cyprus and Jerusalem. .Alshough,b:
had the title of King of Cyprus and Jerusalem, the "'LDS'
of Sardinia could not govern them without umbrage to
the Grand Turk, who de facto governed both, and in a
sense far different from that in which Cardinal Wisewsn
proposed to govern Westminster. In fact, Cardinal
Wiseman would no more govern Westminster than Sho
three Electors of Hanover, who were constitutional mo-
narchs of this country, governed France, though
took the title of King of France—no more thane Jaw"
111., Charles 111., or Henry IX. governed this cuntrY:
though they took the title of King of England. Neveeere.
theless, though these princes had only the title, tuwere still Del gratta vsluntate hominum Kings of
Eng-
land to the consciences of all who believed in their right.
If they were to proscribe Dr. Wiseman, still he woo
be, in the same manner, Dei gratis et voluntate hominum
Primate of all England to conscientious Roman Cattlelics.—(llear.) The distinction was one which defied
and eluded legislation, because it was in foro conscienticer
and between man and his God. It reminded him of the
old dowel of the Jacobites:-
4, God bless the King, God bless the faith's defender,
God bless—there is no harm in blessing—the Pretender;
But who is that, and who the King,
God bless us all,—that's quite another thing."
—(A laugh.) It had been said that the Pope by his
late act had created ecclesiastical rights—another name
for spiritual faculties. Were they, then, going to legia°
late against spiritual faculties—not directly, but against
territorial rights, on account of spiritual faculties?--
(Hear, hear.) It would, in his opinion have been quite
as competent for the Emperor Julian to have en
gaged
ina.persecution of the Christians for their doctrine of
originales sin, or for any other of their doctrines—or for
_e
his subjects on account of Cartesian ideas.—(Hear')
Was to have undertaken a dragooned° against
as the Government of this country about to run amuck
against spiritual faculties beyond man's volition and hu-
man control? Or if, as some held, the belief in these
depended on free will, was not that precisely a "Inert
why they should not legislate, because every mane
case possessed within himself the power of
isne.o;
lodging or nullifying them?—(Hear.) No legissia tto.
would make those who believed in the spiritual r
Hear.)
rity of Dr. Wiseman abnegate that belief, nrinorbreou
compel the mecreans to believe in it. The a blunder
opposite had spoken of the bull of the Pope as
warp
sure the
sudden; but if it were so, he Ty out the
machinery by which the Pope sought to car
that
bull would be the blunder slow. Was it possible°
mt
0.
any statesman in the nineteenth century could dr a,
lint.
Lord
doridt
laying the foundations of spiritual unity in Engl
an
eriod
less it was the same statesman who in the "13"
If the
dreamt of establishing political unity in Italy?
of
Pope was earnest in his aggression, be bad all armyen
troops far mare formidable than Cardinal Wiseman
his suffragans. It was by the monastic orders his
been
everything of any practical use to Rome which bad
gained. He spoke in particular of one order, _r
been lavishly abused, but which had survived the r
vincial Letters of Pascal and the provincial speechesoll:
the winter of 1850 in England—(A laugh)--hs
of the order of Jesus, of whom the wisest of one
philosophers, Bacon, was not afraid to Bah "Th;triza.
they are, would they were ours." In the reign 0'
Ape
their
beth and James they were in this country, thong-
organization was not complete. Thumbscrews cadre
means of torture could not repress them. If it .
said that the Jesuits were already in this country, and
that there had been no persecution of them, he should
claim that as an argument in his favour, for it
would expose the monstrous hypocrisy of their legis-
lation on this point. If—as he believed it to be true--
that the Jesuits were in this country in 1803, that they
had divided Great Britain into provinces—that they had
that a great increased in influence since 1829 and other
organization
part Of
the instructicn of the Catholic children of England was
in the hands of that order—was it not monstrous that
they should seek to strain at a gnat while they bad
swallowed the camel?—(Hear.) In the present case the
Pope had preferred to send seculars, and in one respect
his act was at once praiseworthy, and an example and
warning to ourselves. For the first time in history, the
Pope, by the side of an Eseablished Church, bad con"
netted the grandeur of a hierarchy with the voluntary
principle. He remembered reading a speech of Sir B.
Deering, the Member for East Kent, in the Long par
liament, in which he alluded to the legend that when
Christianity exchanged the persecution of the Page
Emperors for the support of Constantine, an angel
was heard to cry out—" Hodie in ecclesiam venenuin
powerful—so powerful that the uni!
funditis."—(Hear, hear.) But what was now rusk ing
that Church 80

er -
0?

iti-
ed

be
of '

'o•
be ,

10
It

f

s
l

tr.

versal suffrage of France bad sent 10,000 bayonets
t° support it—so powerful that Spain was making
a voluntary restitution of Church property—so
Powerful that Sehwarzenberg, with one stroke of his
th, had swept away the bigotry of a hundred years—
(It, hut that day by day ehe was withdrawing herself
trees state coneexion and Erastian dominion ?—(Hear.)
1114 it was which had enabled a pauper hierarchy to
'Cie its place by the side of a largely salaried episcopal
establishtnent—a pauper hierarchy which was regarded
With sympathy throughout Christendom, while the sale-
"e(l hierarchy had no sympathy out of the British etn-
P11:e. A cardinal prince of the Church bad been sent to
this
country—a dignitary wbo in every court of Europe
Would take precedence of our own Prince Consort—
who, under his Cardinal's robes, carried the wallet of a
mendicant, and who depended for the support of his
dignity only upon the voluntary contributions of those
Who
believed.—(hear.) Rome had gone far beyond the
Government of England in support of the principle that
t°, one should pay but for the faith of his own church.
s
'e had plunged far down for the shadow of the coming
truth and here in England had first proclaimed the
b'lansi of that union between modern liberty and ancient
fetch, which in his conscience he believed would yet re-
generate the world.—(Cheers from the opponents of
the
Sir. M. MILNES said that knowing the difficulty in
which
the Government was placed, he was surprised that
°D. Members should come down, and with words of
f
riendship on their lips seek to embarrass a Govern-
ment
whose place they professed themselves unable to
i111),P1Y. It was not without considerable pain that he
au come to the conclusion that it was his duty to sup-
l'Ort the Bill. He could not deny that there had been
an assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Though de-
idted with the logical speech of the Hon. and Learned
e b ember for Plymouth he could not help being reminded
tio
Y it (sf a mode of arguing on political economical ques-
as in his young days, in which they were expected
, draw perfect conclusions from some such assumption
-ess "Suppose a man on an island."—(A laugh.) If the
Prevent were an abstract question—if it stood by itself
lloaseociated with historical recollections—then the ar-
treents of the Hon. and Learned Member would have
eti irrefragable. But when they recollected the long
struggle between Popery and Protestantism, and the vic-
till? which at last remained with Protestantism only by
h., chance of a change in the dynastic succession,
theught they would find an element in the ques-
-4„°,11 not taken into account by the Honourable
'ad Learned Member for Plymouth in his very able
,r "h. There was another element in that question
orthy of consideration, and it was this—that the
(lisle of England were growing more suspicious than
th any former period of their history of hierarchical au-
°rity altogether. The House would recollect that
When last session it was proposed to add the least pos-
cal offensive number to the bishops in this country, it
80 repugnant to the notions of that use, that the
Governmentabandoned the project. HHo e
thought it was
411 Possible to deny the spontaneous character of the de-
rc)stration which had taken place in that matter.
thew9ver opposed he might be to the letter of
si Noble Lord—for he did not think a Minister had a
ptsl2:lt to make his private religious opinion a part of his
55• lie nolicy—(llear)—he did not think that letter had
much to do with the excitement and agitation which
elkevailed in the country. The object and effect scone
eve
ttitPosed Act he took to be this—to assimilate thktuli and position of such Roman Catholic bishops as
tort be established in this country to that of the same
lY in Ireland. The clause in the Act of 1829 had
it 11 found sufficient for all the purposes for which
tenns originally intended, with the single ex-
Teren, he believed, of John Archbishop of
, who was not considered the most mo-
t amongst the prelates; none of the
ts,:ra had ever attached their titles to any public &cue
gh The Bill on the table only proposed to do the
qhtlla With regard to the new hierarchy. It was, indeed,
relte a question of form—and it was as a question of
k.,,.'113 that he agreed to it. The establishment of a Ro•
a,;"" had
hierarchy by the Pope was an act which
teed no power to prevent; but the publication of that
Of,' the manner in which it had been set forth, its mode
citteliression, were such as fully justified us, with all
lez2egard to the principles of toleration, in examining
4. 1 far the mode in which that act was passed called
se
Silo %dilation on the part of that House. Making every
for w4loce for the person to whom that act had been sent
js,,9Peration, he might have managed it in a less ob-
tte'l°llable manner. There was no distinction between
41auraption of those titles and a certain territorial
(44°11 The Hon. and Learned Member for Plymouth
thei! "(minden Palmer) had said that the Roman Ca-
it tit? religion required that ecclesiastical development
tlist," a, manner proposed. Now he (Mr. M. Milnes)
P;nt that with the assumption of that power we as-
help led more than mere religious distinction. The
41'eiastical dominion of Rome remained a fact in his-
114 which it was impossible to dispute. It was impose
14to dissociate it entirely from political influence.
lye at the Court of Rome at this moment. Look at
tho„"Pal power as it was now. Yet see, how feeble
ftegh its political organization might be, what a power-
(g Political influence it exercised all over the world.—
Its ear.) When the Pope was sent from his dominions,
had been brought back by the Roman Catholics of
lisl‘,,°?°. Now, he (Mr. Milnes) did not think they were
vrt,„'"ug any principle of religious liberty when they
th,;(3 dealing with that question as they were. Indeed,
t 5 'let of the Pope, or one with similar objects, might
c,b"seen done iu a manner which would have offended
tsttlY, and if done in a quiet manner could have been
kolaged in a way not calculated to provoke any ani-
st,,°.ltY or hal feeling in the public mind in rseEneea.
zult 'was, what was the act now? Why it was not so
Oh an act of assumption as of re-assumption. The
cottokla was that the Pope only resumed his old
tti/ver in England—that ha only again returned to
Country as if there had never been a Reformae
Ws"' a civil war, a revolution in England.—(Hear.)
sre
teti not the titles assumed, too, moat assumptuous,
cf tht.rkos t likely to provoke the hostility of the people
wit kis country on account of their former connexion
fstg the Roman Catholic religion? The facts, there-
Re upon which the present Bill was brought in
fee Well founded, and the case of the Government
ZIY supported by the public feeling of the country.
f` clause in the Act of 1829 which prevented Roman
kess, °lic bishops from assuming the titles of sees bad
vtoti`i.,aufficient fur all practical purposes, and therefore
ttit ti:l Make the introduction of that Bill into Ireland
40t)154°. He did not therefore see what difficulty the
ip li'e Lord at the head of the Government could have
ttesirciting its operations to Great Britain, having al-
there that clause in the Emancipation Act of 1829, and
titioe,,ll3? get rid of a good deal of the ill-will and oppo-
of the Irish Members towards that measure.
a difference between the Irish and the En-
l'tee-'"ensan Catholic hierarchy in this respect—that the
:°q„-ttion of the numbers of the people to these bishops
tel),:qy dissimilar; and it was often of some importance
tt h". 103 the public opinion of the laity sufficiently strong
tt%e;°(llfY the arrangements of the episcopacy. With
~et to the possibility of preventing bishops or such
°4‘,44°ril meeting in synod, he could not see the possi-
est:i but if' the attempt were made to prevent them
ttjt Would be driven to meet in secret, and that would
ItitaaYs worse than au open assemblage. But not-
Wetfr he
niding all they had heard on the subject,
telitn' vent ur e to say that it would be difficult in any
,
tatet7°lll assembly in this country to find so many in
Neer Of secular education as there had been in the
oriC4 of Thurles.—(Hear, hear.) He could not
ahtid himself to neglect the opinions of his con-
on that subject ; and, indeed, he thought no
°tt much
ought to differ from his constituents with-
tilelich deliberation and full explanation. After all,
°Pite*taa a question of public opinion, and it was public
std (54 Which would finally settle it. The present Bill
they Kit Satisfy the people of this country; but it was all
•eculd do to satisfy them, and all they ought to do.
tpl(e'er, hear.) If they attempted more, it would be
,
10 delusion upon the people of England. To attempt
1)4 -Itl with that matter was impossible in one respect;
ties IllaY could deal with the assumption of the ostenta-
so titles. Titles were very much regarded in this
tit4htLitry, perhaps more than in any other land. So par-
t') '''ae were we, that our diplomatic or public servants
tinb,„ ,ther places were not allowed to receive any rank or
keb- 'tom a foreign Power. On that point there was
lt-')thing peculiar in the presence of a person holding
kla rank of a cardinal residing in a Protestant country.
eh ~h a person was esteemed a Prince in other countries,
(1,4 was styled brother and cousin by potentates
hi'eoad. New, perhaps it might be that in prohi-
t'king the open use of those titles they were con-
itqeing a benefit upon those who held them ; fur
‘l4 might continually expose them to disagree-
ttr circumstances and consequences in their rola-
sS:,ll3 with the people of this country. Public opinion
go far to prevent all the good which the Act of
%.tl,llight do. It had been formerly said by Sir R. Peel,
itiLl'et. the Act of Catholic Emancipation did not rest
s Parliament, but with the public opinion of the
and that they would be doing very little towards
4ecneiliation of Protestants with Roman Catholics by
tit:ljig the latter in a position then for which they were
vitae fit, or make them eligible for the highest
net-hlttions, to which, however, no Government dare ap-
Wg: them." Such was the position also on which we
the now placed; and he feared that question would at
tipgßM
eext general election exclude many Hon. and dis-
ahsbed Members from that House.—(Hear.) He
elttL49 say to the people of England, it was not by ex-
tintl.ll"C the Roman Catholic Members from that House
I% Y could hope to put an end to the struggle which
;e4l-friPending between the Churches of Rome and
De vend. The contest which was going on could only
'thee by moral moans—by the extension of education
nel,,a clearing up of the minds of men. Such was the
Way in which they could compete with Rome. The
mber concluded by announcing his intention of
,I,tlR for the second reading of the Bill.
Itittdr*SADLElß said the Hon. Member who had just
SEtf°°,l3 fell into merciful hands, for he was disposed to
tier, with him in the spirit of the fullest charity. The
ace-' Member, however, in proceeding to give his rest-
-44411 for voting in favour of that Bill, relieved any person
flit, the trouble of reply, for the Hon. Member imme-
gletY after fully answered himself. He granted that
Wite'°ll. Member's speech, with one or two exceptions,
4Piet an improvement upon that tone of bigotry and
add,: Of intolerance which pervaded so many speeches
41,1)1,;e45ed to the House on that subject. The Honour-
)'o Member admitted that there was a latent hatred of
th(i 1Y in England. No doubt there was. And that was
*otillreat practical difficulty which every statesman
'4 find here who had to legislate for a great mass of
re„°,llB, consisting of Protestant Roman Catholic, and
thoYterian, and other forms of religion. In considering
full
it should always be borne in mind that to
nierllll development of the Roman Catholic religion a
I'ver4 "Y was indispensable. Dr. Murray had over and
sitti again in the discharge of his diocesan kluUe, to
bill)pdeetimputs as " Daniel Murray, Archbishop of
to n 5,111." But the Honourable Gentleman seemed
44Cuu fault with the form rather than with
Illbitanee of that proceeding. The fact