The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 1851.

commendam, and not to a dissenting church, such as
was at pres,nt the Roman Catholic in Ireland.—(Rear.)
Lalor's case was there-fore no precedent in this instance,
for when Lalor was tried the b;,lief in too Roman Ca-
tholic religion was proscribed in this country, and it
conseqcenily had no benefices or other property. Lalor
had, however, done what would have been illegal at any
time—he had (the Hon. and Learned Gentleman quoted
from the State Trials) instituted divers persons to the
benefices containing the cure of souls, had pronounced
divorces, and had performed all other acts pertaining to
the spiritual jurisdiction. But passing that period alto-
gether, and coming down to later legislation, he (Mr.
Keogh) had a right to appeal to the Noble Lord, not as
a lawyer, but as a man legislating for all classes of her
Mairsty'a subjects. Turning to the legislaion of 1846,
he (Hr. Keogh) asked the attention of the Hon. Member
for Ripon to the fact as regarded the statute of that
Year, whether it was the intention of the Government of
that day to keep in force the ancient laws referred to by
the Noble Lord and the legal advisers of the Crown?
Turning to that stztute, so cavalierly treated by the
Solicitor-General—it was not the only Act he treated
cavalierly, though it certainly was easy enough for him
to do so in front of 250 Nlinist,rialists, and with the an-

ewering jeers a 300 or 400 Members of the Opposi•
tion—he (Mr. Keogh) called the attention of the Hon
and Learned Gentleman to the mistakes , f his pro.
decessors and colleagues in this matter. The G:h sec

ti.9n of the Act of 1846 stated that the consideration 0:

all charitable duties in and concerning the usages and
diacipline of the Roman Catholic Church should bo re-
ferred to a Committee of the Commissioners appointed
under the Act. professing the Roman Catholic religion;
that when, by reason of any division, a dispute should
arise, this Committee should certify who, according to
the usage and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church,
should take the devise or bequest in question, and that
the Commissioners, in which were included Protestants,
as well as Catholics—the Protestant Archbishop of Ar-
Magh and others—were bound by the Act of Parliament
to acknowledge the usage and discipline of the Roman
Catholic Church, as certified to them by the Roman Ca-
tholic bishops.—(Hear, hear.) The 15th section of the
Act enabled persons to convey property f.ir the use and
Maintenance of the archbishops, bishops, deans, &c., of
the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. He (Mr. K.),

under these circumstances, asked the Solicitor-General
how was it to be ascertained who was archbishop or
bishop according to the usage of the Roman Catholic
Church? Was it not by reference to the bull creating
' thern?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. K.) cast aside the
nonsense about the Synod of Thurles; also the letters
attributed to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and he
asked the Noble Lord to refer to the official demand ad-
dressed to the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, by
Lord Castlereagh, in the Government of Mr. Pitt, as to
Whence they derived their t►tles, what was their income
&e. It was dated August, 1799, and will be found in
the second volume of "Lord Castlereagh's Memoirs,"
as addressed to Dr. Troy, " Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin," together with the an-
swers thereto, signed by the " Raman " Catho-
lic Metropolitans of Armagh, Dublin, Tuasn, and
Cashel. With this fact before him, did the Noble Lord
pretend to ignore the existence of the Roman Catholic
Church in Ireland? Did the Solicitor-General mean to
lay that the Legislature of 1844, with the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth at its head, i❑tended
to leave room for the Government to come down in
1851 with a Bill such as that of the Noble Lord—" a
thing of shreds and patches," borrowed from both sides
of the House—to destroy the religious liberties of a
third of the people of this country? The Master of the
Rolls, in the earlier discussions on the Bill, said that
things should be done in as quiet a manner as possible.
Tle (Mr. Keogh) called the attention of the House to the
insidiousness of the words. The Solicitor-General,
however, when pressed by the Hon. Member for Dun-
dalk, said that the Bill did nothing, except declare the
law as it stood. He (Mr. Keogh) asked the Noble Lord
If there was a shadow of a doubt on the case, was he
prepared to pass the clause? The House of Commons
had been for the last thirty years trying to set right the
legislation of centuries: was the Noble Lord prepared to
paralyse those efforts by placing under the ban the re-
ligion of one-third of the people?—(Hear.) The asser-
tion of the Solicitor- General was hastily and indis-
ereetly made; in Ireland tue hierarchy had been always
existent—there were no ♦icars apostolic. The clause
Under notice, however, would render illegal the source
and fountain whence that hierarchy derived its eccle-
siastical authority. Was it desirable to do this? Was
the Government prepared to adopt the clause of a poli-
tical opponent? He (Mr. Keogh) called on the Noble
Lord in conclusion to xestrict the application of the
measure; and he moved, therefore, with the view of pre-
serving the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Ire-
land, that the word "England" should be inserted in
the clause.

Lord 3. RUSSELL—I had expected to hear from the
Ron. and Learned Gentleman an argument to prove
that the clause before the House is not founded on law.
"—(blear, hear.) We have heard from Hon. and Learned
Members on every side of the House that this clause is
explicit—that it lays down the law of England as it
stands—and that it cannot be contravened by any law.
I have listened in vain for any proof that this is not the
case in the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has told the House
for the third or fourth time that the Bill is inoperative;
but as for argument to show it, he has not favoured us
With any. What is the evil which is proposed to be
amended? A rescript of the Pope, or a paper purport.
ing to be a remript, has appeared, founding an arch-
bishopric to be called the Archbishopric of Westminster,
and founding various bishoprics in subordination to it,
such as the bishoprics of Birmingham, Soutnwark, Clif-
ton, and twelve other sees.—(Hear, hear.) It was
affirmed in the preamble of the original Bill that the
attempt to establish such sees and provinces was illegal
and void ; and in conformity with that preamble
this clause says, that " that re3cript therefore shall,
and shall be deemed to be, unlawful and void."
040 would expect, under these circumstances, that
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman would show
that the See of Rome had power and authority by law
to establish archbishoprics and bishoprics in this country
before he called on the House to reject this clause. Has
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman done so?—(Hear.) If
be has not, then he has not made an argument against
the clause.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
Dian has raised various arguments against the extension
of.this clause to Ireland, but as to the chief affirmation
!Dina it, he has shown no cause whatever for comply-
lag with his desire. I next come to the assertion of the
grave discrepancy between the statements of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Midhurst and my Hon. and
Learned Friend the Solicitor-General. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Midhurst is asked if the clause ap-
plied to England; and ho replies that it did, because it is
aPetially calculated to apply to the rescript of the 29th
of September, at which it was expressly aimed. The
Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford then
laid if this was the effect of the clause it would get the
Government into great contradiction with itself ; for
that they were about to say it was unlawful for the Pope
to establish a bishopric in England, while it was left
open to him to create in Ireland any see he wished, and
he referred to the new bishopric of Ross recently
established in that country. Whereupon the Solicitor •
General said, "It by no means followed, for that
the clause did not apply specially to England alone, but
Was a declaration of the law by Parliament, that if it
was illegal to establish sees in England it was therefore
illegal to establish them in Ireland, seeing that the law
on the subject was the same in both countries since
Poyning's Act, and that the courts of law would so in-
terpret it."—(Hear, hear.) I have, however, yet to learn
that these answers are at variance.—(Hear, hear.) If
they are not, then is there no discrepancy between the
affirmations of the Hon. and Learned Member for Mid-
hunt and my Hon. Friend the Solicitor-General. But,
said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, if this be the
case, the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion is
practically forbidden in Ireland. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, however, made no way in showing this to be
the case, nor in proving that the law in Ireland gave
the Pope more power to establish sees and provinces
than it gives him in this country. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman began by contradicting the authority of
Lalor's case as not good law in this.
Mr. KEOGH explained. He did not say so. He
said, if it was based on these grounds, that it would be
within the law.

Lord J. RUSSELL—It was no doubt part of the case;
but could the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in
Ireland be forbidden if the ease did not apply?—(Hear,
hear.) The statute under which Lalor was convicted,
however, was a statute passed when the Roman Catholic
religion was the religion of the country—namely, the
Act Richard II.; and therefore the argument of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman does not apply in the
case. The authority in Lalor's case i 5, that he exer-
cised powers derived from Rome; that is what we com-
bat this day.—(Bear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman finds in the Bequests Act some authority
which, according to his interpretation, gives powerr
nto
the Roman Catholic Church to organize itself in Ireland
as it may choose. In all the arguments we have had on
the subject, the Roman Catholic bishops in
though they might not assume the titles, are admitted. to
have exercised their functions within the ancient die_
ceses, and they have not been interfered with se long as
their acts were not in contravention of the law of the
land. That was the state of things which it was wished
to retain, and no reason presented itself why any inter-
ference should be made with the Roman Catholic bishops
in the exercise of their functions. But the Bequests
Act, instead of being, as the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman said, a solemn and public recognition of
the Roman Catholic prelates' powers and authority,
was as Act, as he bad before said, carefully, sedu-
lously, and, he would add, skilfully drawn up so as to
avoid such an inference. The Act did not say " bishops
exercising jurisdiction," or, " Roman Catholic prelates
ruling over and governing dioceses ;" but " bishops offi-
ciating" not within any diocese, but " within any dis-
trict ;" so that whether archbishop, bishop, or vicar
apostolic, the prelate would be recognised by law as a
right rev. prelate " officiating in that district." It
was further considered it might be a question with re-
spect to-Roman Catholic priests in any districts in which
they might officiate as to the authority—whether from
the bishop, or from Rome—by virtue of which they. exer-
cised their functions. That difficulty might have caused
considerable embarrassment, for if a case came before the
Court it was seen by the authors of the Bill that Roman
Catholic priests to whom charitable bequests were made
could not take the money bequeathed to them by a title
not legal, or under a doubtful title. It we,' however,
provided that questions of such a nature, if they arose,
should be referred to committee composed solely of
Roman Catholic Commissioners, these Commissioners
being required to decide the question of who was to re-
ceive the money according to the rules of their Church,
and to report, not that a certain person was priest of a
particular parish, or that a certain person Was the
Bishop of Limerick or any other place, but to report
who was to receive benefit according to the in.
WAWA of the donor, whether the Bight Rev.

Dr. Ryan, or the Rev. W. O'Connell, or .any
other person. This was what the Commissioners
were only to report, end therefore no question as
to the assumption of illegal titles could come before the
public. Such was the course taken by the framers of
the Bill, which was introduced for useful purposes, and
which had been worked out so as to accomplish those
useful purposes. Sc, then, with regard to the case of
" Lelor," and also the Bequests Act, the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman had failed to make out that 'it
came within the lawful authority of the see of Rome to
erect bishoprics and to give jurisdiction over dioceses in
this kingdom. The lion. and Learned Gentleman had
attempted to prove even that the Pope had power to do
this in Ireland. With respect to the practical effect of
the Bill, he coneeived hardly any part of the Bill—though
a Bill for the United Kingdom, and which extended
throughout the United Kingdom—would have any effect
in Ireland. With regard to the bishopric of Galway, it
certainly would prevent any person from assuming the
title of Bishop of Galway. If any person were ready
to assume the title of Archbishop of Team, it would, no
doubt, affect him, and would render the assumption of
that title unlawful. With regard to all other matters
in the Bill, it would leave things as nearly as possible
in the same state as they wore before it passed. With
regard to the first clause, it declared that to be law
which no la eyer had denied was law—that which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself had not denied
was law. The first clause only declared that to he law
which in Ireland, as well as England, was law. With
regard to the second clause, that prevented the assump-
tion of illegal titles by Roman Catholic bishops. If
Roman Catholics bishops di3 aisume titles, it would, be
those of existing bishoprics, such as Artnegh and Cork,
not the title of new sees. The Bill was directed, as it
ought to be directed, to a particular attempt against the
Crown, the Parliarneet, and the nation; and the Bill did
not do anything that was unnecessary to effect that pur-
pose. On the other hand, if the Bill only made a de-
claration of the law in England it would do this—it
would give rise to the belief that the Pope might create
any number of new sees in Ireland, notwithstanding the
prerogatives of the Crown, and the independence of the
nation.—(Hear, hear.) Now that he held to be a great
change of the constitution and of the law, in derogation
of the prerogatives of the Crown and the independence
of the nation.—(Hear, hear.) And he trusted the
House would not give their sanction to any such pro-
ceeding.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord continued, with
animation—" It may suit the purposes of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman and others to make a great agita-
tion in Ireland, and to proclaim interdictions from Tuam
that hereafter Roman Catholic bishops and priests would
be driven from Ireland, and their chapels levelled with
the ground—those statements are made to impose on
very ignorant people, but every one knows in this
House that after the Bill passes there will be perfect
freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics, with the
full and unfettered exercise of their religion.—(Hear.)
Some Hon. Members will, doubtless, get up and say the
Roman Catholics are the best judges of what is best for
the interests of the Roman Catholic religion. Stop a
little, I say to them. I am ready to say you shall have
everything necessary for the organization of your Church
and for the free exercise of your religion, provided you
do not interfere with the rights and religion of others.
—(Loud cheers.) So long as you confine yourselves to
the appointing of two, four, six, or eight Roman Ca-
tholic bishops in England, that is a matter with which I
have no concern. Whatever the number of bishops you
may think necessary for the organization of your Church,
I do not intend to interfere with that, but when you
come here and declare you will rule England, her coun-
ties and places, because it is necessary for the interests
of your religion, then I say that under the Act of 1791,
by whicießoman Catholic priests were free to perform
mass, you might as well sey'you cannot perform mass
according to the Roman Catholic religion, unless per-
formed in Westminster Abbey; and to that my answer
would be, you may perform your mass in any chapel
you please, but into Westminster Abbey you have no
right to come, and into Westminster Abbey you shan't
come.—(Loud cheers.) So I say, organize your Church
as you please, only allow us to preserve our independ-
ence as a nation, and not to be subject to tiny foreign
power."—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. ROCHE said the Noble Lord had mentioned no-
thing about the archbishopric of Westminster. He had
heard accusations of all kinds against Irish Members
during the debate, but the strangest accusation against
them bad been made by the Noble Lord, who said the
Irish Members had been irrelevant in their proceeaings,
because they debated the question before the House.
There had been no valid season assigned why. Ireland
should not be included in the Bill. The only reason
given by the Noble Lord was, if Ireland was not in-
eluded, the Pope at some future time might erect bi-
shoprics and appoint to new sees, therefore it was neces-
sary to guard the prerogative of the Crown from the
anticipated invasion. It would be impossible to carry
out the Bequests Act without going right in the teeth cf
that clause, which extended the Act to Ireland. As to
the charge of getting up bad agitation in Ireland, he
would say, if anything did arise from that bail agitation,
it would be attributable to the conduct of the Noble Lord
himself, who refused to take Ireland out of the Bill. On the
shoulders of the Noble Lord, and not at the door of the Irish
Members, let the consequences be laid. The Irish Roman
Catholic Members objected to this legislation for Eng-
land, because it infringed the rights and liberties of Eng-
lish Roman Catholics. Considering the little that had
been done for the cure of the thy sical sufferings of Ireland
by the present Government since they had come into
power, he considered it came with a bad grace from the
Noble Lord to refuse to Wee Ireland cut of the Bill.
Ireland wanted peace and tranquillity. This Bill was
uncalled for, and would put au end to those peaceful and
fraternal feelings which were beginning to exhibit
themselves in Ireland between Protestants and Roman
Catholics. The Bill would also operate unjustly on
that honest and hard-working class the landlords of Ire-
land. It would revive religious disputes—religious fc el-
ine,s, symptoms of which were to be seen in Ulster,
where the bad example of the Noble Lord had been fol-
oe ed. He warned these persons that the titre would
come when they would be not only abandoned by the
Noble Lord, but by the Protestant people of England,
and left stranded and helpless amidst a body of their ex-
asperated Irish Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ••• ~. 39
Against it ... 84
Majority against the amendment —45
Mr. KEOGH then moved " Provided that nothing in
the clause shall be construed to interfere with the eccle-
siastical and spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic
archbishops and bishops in _lreland."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the objection to
the proviso was this --that the clause on which the pro-
viso was to be grafted did not affect the position of the
archbishops and bishops in Ireland, unless their juris-
diction and authority were exercised under illegally as-
sumed titles. If they did so exercise their power and
authority, it was impossible to say they did so legally by
that Bill (as we understood).
Mr. KEOGH said the sincerity of her Majesty Go-
vernment could only be tested by such amendments as
these, and it was only by bringing such amendments for-
ward that they had the slightest chance of coming to the
truth. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said it was
unnecessary to include such a proviso in the Bill, for it
would not interfere with the spiritual and ecclesiastical
functions of the Roman Catholic prelates unless exercised
under illegal titles. The sophism in that reply was evi-
dent. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman well knew
there could neither be bishops or archbishops without
rescripts or letters apostolic. It was intended by the
Bill to proscribe rescripts or letters apostolic, and all he
now wanted to avoid was—that the Bill should interfere
with those functions which they said they did not wish
to interfere with. Ile would give them the whole clause
if they liked, but let the Noble Lord say in plain lan-
guage—let him put in a provision embodying his ides, he
did not care about the language—which would prevent
that interference which ho deprecated. The Noble Lord
had said so much about Ireland recently that he would
remind the Noble Lord of a time when he was more
alive to religious liberty in Ireland, and when his opi-
nions were very different on the subject of the two esta-
blishments to those which he now maintained. He
wanted to know why the Noble Lord was so jealous
about interfering with the Episcopal Church Of Scotland,
which did not number so many as 200,000 persons, while
the Irish Roman Catholics were 6,000,000? He wanted
to know why the third clause should especially state it
was not to extend to the assumption of titles by the
Episcopal Church of Scotland? Why should not the
same exemption be accorded to the Roman Catholics of
Ireland that had been granted to the Episcopalians of
Scotland? It' the Noble Lord rejected the present pro-
position, he should use all the forms of language to re-
new it, and to test the declaration of the Noblelord in
favour of religious liberty.
Mr. A. B. HOPE had always voted with the small
minority on this question, but could not support the pre-
sent proposition of the lion. Member for Athlone, be-
cause he considered it to be antagonistic to the free ad-
ministration of religious liberty. Besides, he did not
see why such an amendment should be limited to the
Roman Catholics of Ireland.

Mr. KEOGH had no wish to separate, the case of the
Roman Catholics of Ireland from that of the rest of the
community, and he should therefore r.o far alter his
amendment as to include the United Kingdom.
Mr. ANSTEY was surprised there should be any op-
meat, would nut apply
on to the amendment, for if the preamble were not
op-
position
though
greatly altered, the clause, with or without the amend-
lead, before the to Ireland. Tee amendment,
not necessary, might make the clause less objec-
tionable to people. of Ireland, and above all it might
regretted that exemptingthea Irelandt altogether from the Bill. He
a clause li Ilbecame•law, to the introduction of
ques-
tion had not been 4iation and dimssion on this directedques-
solely to the exclusion of Ire-
land from the measure
Member for Carlow had alluded
Friday night the Ron. O ti seaking on this subject on
to what he was pleased to his (Mr. Anstey's) teme-
rity in the allegations he had
izif!tuber laid such stress
le on this subject, lie
vvab
namesurY. t o The
more
was glad to find that the
on the authority of Lord Shre
English
Roman Catholics had signed their
one declaration on this matter, and o
than one the sentiments they bad expressed were Peca""B
all contradictory and iecensistent with each were nearly
for one, therefore, paid not the slightest deference
ne
the declaration referred to by the nm.
Itineib'e,nce to
begged the attention of the Lion. Gentleman to the. Ile
very
important declaration by the clergy of Beverley ell this
subject, every paragraph of which had been contradicted
by all the persons except one who had signed it. in
that declaration 'the clergy of Beverley'rrot only pro-
tested against the rescript, but they addressed Dr.
Wiseman, and asked for the establishment of such
an ecclesiastical government as might be in ac-
cordance with the free constitution and equitable
laws of this country—they deprecated the intro-
duction of any new foreign system of ecclesiastical law
as hostile to the feelings of the people by whom they
wero surrounded, and they contended that the attempted
reatontion Pt the hierarchy, instead of o9nduoiog to the

advantage of the Catholic religion, would be the cause of
its dettriorctim in England. That address was pre-
- vented to Dr. Wiseman, 'and the result was, that in two
or three days afterwards every one of the subscribers
raceived a circular from the Vicar• General of York,
along with the draft of an address which they were re-
• quested to sign, if approved of, and to return it by post.
He believed that only two of the clergy who had,sigaed
-the former address had refused 'to sign the address sent
to them by the Vicar-General, which contained a distinct
retractation of every sentiment expressed in the first
address, and an expression of gratitude to Dr. Wiseman
for having restored .the hierarchy.—(Hear.) He was
Wormed that the two clergymen who had so refused to
stultify themselves had been, he would not say suspended,
from their incumbencies, but had been displaced.—
(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Tipperary had asked
him what proof he could produce of the assertion which
he had made regarding the -petition to the Pope. The
House was no doubt aware that in 1837 the late Pope
put forth a document with regard to a hierarchy, and
proposed to refer to the clergy themselves the
duty of settling their own form of government. Every-
thing was to be done here. and nothieg at Rome.
The clergy as well as the laity accepted the proposal
with alacrity. but it was not agreed to at Rome, Dr.
Wiseman, who was then agent there, having objected to
the sehetne as trenching too much on episcopal autho-
rity. Petitions were therefore sent to the Pope from
certain Roman Catholies heie offering to stand by him
against the bishops,- and to-one of these petitions the
Hon. Member for Tipperary had put his name.—(Hear,,
hear.) In that petition the Hon. Member, among others,
told the Pope that so far from this country being ripe
for a nierai chy, it was in all probability doomed to re-
main for generations a missionary country, and he called
on the Pope to protect the priests as well as the laity in
this country against the attempts that were contem
plated by certain parties at Rome. That was the an-
swer he had to make to the Hon. Member for Tipperary.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY wished to
ask the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen whether he ad-
dressed the House as a Catholic or not?--_-_(oh, oh!)

Mr. ANSTEY rose amid cries of "Don't answer."
He said as a question •had' been put to him, he should
like, if in order, to answer it. He should be exceedingly
sorry to retaliate on the Noble Lord, bat could not re-
frain from expressing his astonishment that any Member
should commit the unpardonable insolence of patting
such a question to another Member touching his religion.
—(Cheers.) If permitted to answer the Noble Lord, he
might say he was to the full us good a Catholic as the
Noble Lord.—(Cheers.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that was
all he wanted. The question, he thought, was a fair
one.—(Loud cries of No, no.") When the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman got up and expressed sentiments
totally at variance with the feelings of the great body of
the Catholics of this country, he thought he had a right
to ask the Hon, and Learned Gentleman if he spoke as a
Catholic or not.—(Expressions of dissent.) The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman being a Catholic was no doubt
aware how Catholics changed their minds, for he recol-
lected the Hon. and Learned Gentleman once making a
speech of five hours against the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, and yet, when the Hon. and
Learned Member for Sheffield brought forward, last
year, his motion for a vote of confidence in that Noble
Lord, the Hon. and Learned Member for Youghal sup-
ported it. With respect to the signatures to the paper
alluded to by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman he knew
nothing, but he presumed that, after some consideration,
those who had signed it thought better of the matter.—
(Laughter.) However that might be, he did not deny
that among English Catholics—as among other reli-
gious bodies—there might be a few discontented mem-
bers opposed to the discipline which the head of the
Church thought it his duty to impose.
Mr. NAPIER did not think there was any difference
between the law of England and the law of Ireland on
this question. Lalor was doubly convicted—first on the
Act of Elizabeth, and again on the Act of Richard
11., which still remained the law of the land. Allusion
had been made to the Charitable Bequests Act,
but he had never known any of the diocesan or paro-
chial documents brought into a court of law. He
observed with regret the attempt made to mislead the
people of Ireland as to the nature of this measure, which
was purely defensive in its character, and aimed not
against the Roman Catholic religion in this country, but
against ultrarnontaniem.—(Hear, hear.) It had been
admitted by the ultramontane press that the appoint-
ment of Dr. Cullen was a first attempt on the part of
the Pope to supersede the usual mode of nominating
bishops ie Ireland. In his opinion they had nothing to
do with matters of discipline, but only with overt acts,
and to say whether or not they were in accordance with
the laws of the land. If the Pope's rescript was not a
lawful document, and if certain restrictions in conse-
quence of it were to be - imposed on Roman Catholics,
who was to blame?—(Hear, ' hear.) He was clearly of
opinion that it was an unlawful document.
Mr. ANSTEY said a difference existed in the law of
Ireland and England on this subject. The Emancipation
Act tolerated a hierarchy in Ireland, but only permitted
the system of vicars apostolic in England.
Mr. M. GIBSON understood the Hon. and Learned
Member for Athlone to consent to extend his amend-
ment to the United Kingdom. When they considered
the monstrous injustice of forcing the -Irish people t 6
pay for a Church they did not acknowledge, and, in the
next. lace of telling them that they should not have the
Church of their own choosing, he thought there were
strong reasons why -Ireland should be included in the
amendment. They had imposed Protestant bishops upon
Ireland, and yet they would not allow the Roman Ca-
tholics in Ireland to have bishops of their own.—(Hear,
hear.) There was, in fact, something so unjust in the
whole of this proceeding that he could hardly condescend
to enter into the details. Now declaring that bulls ap-
pointing bishops were void, and those bishops ordaining
priests, ho wished to know did they mean to declare that
such ordination was unlawful? They had, to use the
words of Jeremy Taylor," suffered disobedience to grow
into custom;" end yet they were now reviving an old
law for the purpose of persecution. And, doing this,
they did not provide against common informers proceed-
ing against Roman Catholic bishops. They ought to
provide that no proceeding by indictment could be in-
stituted, without the consent of the Crown. They
ought to do this, for there could be no doubt that the
animus of the whole proceeding was the old " No
Popery" cry, for there was a desire in this country to
check by penal legislation the progress of the Roman
Catholic religion.—(lleer, hear.)
Sir H. W. BARRON obeerved that they had allowed
the law for the last hundred years to be violated; and
now there was a revival of the old law. They made of
that old a new law, for the purposes of persecution; and
the men who did this were playing a double game with
a double face. He believed the measure was introduced
by a party in that House for the purpose of raising a
popular cry in its favour. It was to create discord in
that House amongst those who would be otherwise
united on general. subjects. Was there any man in or
out of that House who had the audacity to say that the
Queen's prerogative was invaded by the appointment of
Roman Catholic bishops? The Queen had no preroga-
tive for appointing Roman Catholic bishops. The Queen,
never had appointed Roman Catholic bishops. It had
been asserted that the act of the Pope was an insult to
this country; but in what sense, he asked, could it be so?
How were they insulted? How were they invaded?
What civil or religious rights had been taken from
them? Had the Roman Catholic bishops taken posses-
sion of any of the glebes of the Established Church? He
contended that the Roman Catholics had the right, as
free born men in a free country, to exercise their reli-
gion according to its written law; and if Government
desired-to abolish that religion, let them do it openly
and not underhandedly. Ile should give the clause his
most decided opposition.
Captain TAYLOR said that not having had the op-
portunity of addressing the House upon the second
reading of the Bill, he was desirous of stating that he
was anxious the House should eeoord its strong disap•
probation of what had been termed the Papal aggres-
lsst rooaifstlitaidmst ay immediately
etdtuihameteniley htet
upone, r
aggres-
sion, and repel it in the most vigorous manner. But ho
must say he did not think the Bill did that. At the
c
i in
of t commonlit ne
meeting
eoebtl withion o
ofr
di
manyin)Parliament
or
itoaht
moh eebrnos
was
fe h
some measure would be proposed in accordance with
a ; but ho confessed that he was grievously die-
aTt
appointed
laoe
ne,
tt
Assumptionet etr
vihe n
he rßoail, ditohnd the dseatwailhsoowf
weaktEcclesiasticalheandineff
tive its clauses vvere.—(llear, hear.) For his part, he
preferred the passing of a resolution declaratory of the
illegality of the Measures taken by the Papacy, and the
appointment of a Committee to examine into the ex-
isting state of the law, and report as to the mode in
which the evil complained of might best be met.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that that " defender of the
faith," the
.Hon. Member far Marylebone (Sir B. Hall),
had on Friday night proposed that there should be
morning sittings until this Bill had passed tkrough the.
House. That proposition was an insult to the Irish
Members, and the small minority of English Members
who bad voted with them, and whose names should be
written, to their eternal honour, in letters of gold.—
(Oh, oh, and laughter.) They might utter their " Ohs I"
and their ironical cheers if they pleased; but ho repeated
that their names should be engralen upon the hearts of
the Irish people.—(Renewed la.o hter.) He should not
Toh ih oh.) He
of the
adoption
put the converse, and tell the majority how their names ,
would
in
beenl driven Ireland.—(Ohs e lan dv
e. He believed
majority
course on which they had entered. They were, in fact,
talking to their constituents, and Voting in order that the
tbe received
ad
division lists might be read at the hustings; because
they knew they had evoked a spirit of bigotry and into-
leranee that might cost them their seats in the event of
a dissolution of Parliament.—(Oh,
oh.) He spoke it
advisedly. He knew more Hon. Members than he would
venture to name, who had told him that they wished the
Bill was at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean; but they
had been coerced to vote for it by a spirit of intolerance
which it was impossible for them to resist.—(oh, oh.)
The Hon. Member for Marylebone had stated that the
opponents to this Bill were placing important business
in, abeyance. He (Mr. Reynolds) would be glad to know
what important business was to be found upon the paper?
Had the Government put upon it any proposal to ex-
tend the Parliamentary franchise? No; they had post-
poned it until next session, in the hope that they would
then be able to mike a Cebdienet question of it.—
(Leughter.) Had they proposed any measure to re-
lieve the working men of England and Scotland from
ititolerable pressure of indirect taxation.—(oh
and cries of " Question, q )
uestion." They had re.,t. IT:d
they put upon the papet nay notice of n inotio'h to relieve
the hard-working professional man from the grievous
burden of the income-tax? No •, they had. not.—(Re-
noised c • f
cries o Oh, oh," and " Question.') What mea-
sure of importancehad
the Government upon thti paper?
--(Question,Would
question.) Now, he honed the.. Committee
permit the business before them to be done in a
proper manner—(Lond cries- of " Question" from Mr.
Wawn.) He (ur. R
for South Shields wQueynolds) hoped the Hon. Member
ld conduct himself in a sober man-
"' (Alm") Ile Muted that be

would not be compelled to repeat that observation. On
Saturday night lat
Mr. WA N—No, no; not Saturday.—(Laughter.)

Mr. REYNOLDS (turning round and looking signi

ficantly at Mr. Wawa, who sat upon one of the extreme
benches at the extreme end of the opposition side of the
House) said that the Hon. Gentleman had again thought
proper to interrupt him.
Mr. WAWN—Mr. Chairman, I rise to order. I want,
'to know whether the Hon. Member for Dublin is to
speak truth or falsehood in this House.—(Order.)
The CHAIRMAN—The Hon. Member for South
Shields has made use of words which are clearly
disorderly.
Mr. WAWN—I beg pardon, Sir, if I have said any-
thing disorderly; but I wish to ask you or any other
Member of this House what you or he was doing on
Saturday night?—(Roars of laughter.)
Mr. REYNOLDS—It had been often said that a
child might ask a question which it would puzzle a
philosopher to answer.—(hear, hear.) Ha dared say
that it would be almost impossible to ask him (the
Chairman) a question that would puzzle him more to
answer than that—what they were all doing on last
Saturday night ?—(Laughter.) Passing, however, from
that subject, he would refer to the motions of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncotnbe) and the
Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon (Sir F. The-
siger), in discussing which but a very small portion of
the night was occupied. He thought it, therefore, un-
reasonable to censure the Irish Members for occupying
the time of the House. But he intended not to make
an apology for himself or his Hon. Friends; for let it be
understood that this was a life and death question with
them. There was involved in this question one whether
they were to have free altars or not? He would not say
" happy homes," for by their ill-direatedlegislation they
had put an end to happy lionses in Ireland.—(" Hear,"
from the Irish Members.) The Noble Lord at the head
of the Government said that this Bill would bo as
mild a measure in Ireland as could be proposed.
How' then, would the Noble Lord be able to satisfy
the Members who were supporting him from the
Opposition benches? If this measure were such
a one as the Noble Lord described it, it was then
evident that he was passing bad coin upon the
sound Protestant Members of that House, and he (Mr.
Reynolds) doubted not but that they would vote against
him if they believed his statement in this respect to be
quite true. He wished to put a question to the Noble
Lord who, he supposed, was somewhat tired of answer-
ing questions asked him by the opponents of his Bill.
He (Mr. Reynolds) dared say that the Noble Lord was
disposed to call them animated notes of interrogation.—
(Laughter.) His question to the Noble Lord was—Did
he intend this Bill, in all its integrity, to apply to Ire-
land? The Solicitor-General said .4 No, not in terms;"
but by the construction of an Irish judge it would ex-
tend to Ireland. But the Hon. Member for Midhurst,
in saying that it would not extend to Ireland, gave very
different reasons for such an opinion. Bat even if it be
only confined to England, he would tell them on the part
of Ireland that they were prepared to stand by the Eng-
lish Catholics to the very end of the struggle. This was
more their battle than that of the Irish people. The Irish
Catholics were strong, but the English were weak; and
the Irish Catholic representatives would fight the cause
for them with as much zeal and perseverance as their
own. He intended not to use menacing language towards
the authors of this Bill, but if they passed an Act that
would impose pains and penalties upon the Catho-
lic hierarchy of Ireland it would be a dead letter, for no
Government would have the power to carry it into
effsct. How did the Noble Lord reconcile his present
insulting, bigotted, and he would almost call it atrocious
legislation with his former political acts regarding Ire-
land ?—(Hear, hear.) In a speech delivered by the
Noble Lord in 1835, in the discussion upon the appro-
priation clause debate, the Noble Lord spoke ably and
argumentatively, as he always did except on the Papal
Aggression Bill--(Laughter)—for upon that he breaks
down—he was doing a job that neither God nor nature
intended for him. The work was too heavy for him,
and he was unable to get through it himself, and indeed
he had not obtained much assistance from his colleagues.
—(Hear, hear.) But to refer to his speech in 1835,
when he was speaking of the Protestant Church in Ire-
land with all its temporal abominations, the Noble Lord
then said that the entire number of Protestants in Ire-
land could hardly be stated higher than 730,000, to sup-
port the, clergy of whom the enormous sum of 800,0001.
a year was exacted from the population, of which
the remainder were Roman Catholics. The Noble
Lord then referred to a number of dioceses for the pur-
pose of showing the extraordinary disproportion that
existed between the Catholic and Protestant population
of Ireland.

Mr. WAWN—What year was that?
Mr. REYNOLDS continued—The Noble Lord then
ended hie speech with this resolution:—" That thia House
resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for
the purpose of considering the temporalities of the
Church of Ireland." The Noble Lord hating then car-
ried his motion the Ministry of the day were dislodged,
and the appropriation clause was from that day placed
in the tomb of all the Capulets.—(Laughter and cheers.)
The Protestant Church of Ireland was in all its tem-
poral integrity, although the Noble Lord had been Prime
Minister of the country for many years.—(Hear, hear.)
Up to this hour the Noble Lord had never even whis-
pered a word about the Irish Protestant Church, except
for the purpose of strengthening it, nor about the tempo-
ralities of that Church but to increase them. The pre-
sent measure, which would subject an Irish Catholic
bishop to a penalty of 1001., or in default of payment to
be conveyed to a felons' gaol, was the Noble Lord's ap-
propriation clause for Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Why, it
was enough to make the blood boil in the veins of an
Irish Catholic with indignation. He appealed to the
English Members of that House to say how they would
like to be treated as the Irish Roman Catholics ware
treated. In 1841 Ireland contained a population of
8,200,000. Famine had done its work since.
But there was an artificial famine and a
Government famine abroad. His country people were
dying in the workhouses, which were properly called
slaughter-houses, dying on an average at the rate of
2,000 a week, for want of the common necessaries of
life. And the remedy for ail their wants was this in-
sulting and atrocious Bill. Why was the Protestant
Church the Established Church of England? Why was
the Presbyterian Church the Established Church of
Scotland? Why, because the majority of the people in
either country belonged to the Protestant and Presby-
terian Churches. But why was the Protestant Church
the Established Church of Ireland? For reasons diame-
trically opposite.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There
were some Eoglish Members of Parliament who were
no doubt remarkable for the bump of self-esteem, which
was so large that it neutralised every other bump.
Such Members as these had told the Catholic Members
of that House that if they occupied any more of their
time they would have day sittings—(Hear, hear.) Well,
he (Mr. Reynolds) would say, let them commence their
day sittings, and then they would see which would be
tired first,—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord was a kind
of lay Pope over the Established Church. But to pass
on to the Hon. and Learned Member for Yougbal (Mr.
Anstey), who had borne false witness against the creed
he professed—(" Question," from Mr. Wawn.)
Mr. LAWLESS here rose te girder. He said it Was
quite true that they were a small pars -
r
dete
oppose a Bill which they considered of a Mostirmine
ust and
jd to
in
persecuting character; but he appealed to that •:c'llse
whether the interruptions which were so frequent;;
offered to the Hon. Member for Dublin by the Hon.
Member for South Shields were not disorderly ?
Mr. WAWN said he had not interrupted the speaker
when he was speaking to the question. But when he
diverged to other topics he claimed it to be his privilege
to call out " Question," and to call him to order. -
Mr. REYNOLDS said it was rather too bad, when he
was endeavouring to plead the cause of his creed and his
country, that he was to be exposed to these interruptions.
The only excuse he could make for the Hon. Gentleman
was that he was not perfectly conscious of what he was
doing.—(Order, order.) -
Mr. WAWN again rose to order. He wanted to
know if, as an independent Member of that House, he
felt himself oalled upon to discharge a duty expected
from him by his constituents, it was right for the Hon.
Member for Dublin to hold out language calculated to
intimidate him in the discharge of his duty?
Mr. REYNOLDS said that when he was last inter-
rupted he was referring to, the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Youghal. 'He first thought that he ought not to
refer to that Hon. and Learned Gentleman, recollecting
that he was a lawyer, and knowing that all lawyers had
a laudable anxiety to promote their own interest wher-
evera they went.—(Hear, and laughter.) But the Hon.
and Learned Member bore false witness to his creed.
He (Mr. Reynolds) would not allow him or any one else
to do so with perfect impunity. But the Hon. and
Learned Member was cheered when he was making
those statements. No one called him to order when he
was calumniating his creed, The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman reminded hint, on those occasions when he
(Mr. Reynolds) had the pain to hear him speaking on
this Bill,' of a passage in the poetry of that bard with
whose name Ireland was closely identified. In speaking
of her representatives, who, as In this case, were not al.
.
ways her sons, he might say—
" Upraised are her sons till they've learned to betray
Undistinguished they live if they shame not their sires.
The torch that would light them to dignity's way
Must be caught from the pile where their country expires."
He thanked God he (Mr. Anstey) was not an Irishman,
and he was reminded by an Hon. Gentleman to thank
God that he was not an Englishman. He might call
him "the disowned"—but he deeply regretted he was
an Irish representative, representing a Roman Catholic
community. The gratitude which he exhibited towards
them in that House was to record his vote when he
could against their religious liberty; to calumniate them,
and libel them in the senate of the nation. He might be
told the Bill would pass, and that it was folly to oppose
it. He hoped no Irish representative would enunciate
such sentiueents in that House. It was now nearly four
months s!snce the Bill had been laid before the House,
and thrl
long, !end it was not clear to him that they would ever
bad not yet passed one clause of five lines
pass ..tt. The men who were proposing it knew it could
nit.work; that their declarations and the clause were in-
eAnpatible; that religious liberty could not exist in
--'z•pglere or Ireland if the clause passed; therefore be
ben e that they themselves must back out of it. But
it bad been said that either that Bill or a worse one
would 'he passed. He told the House that the same
power which strangled the present Bill would strangle
2s- worse one. At all events the opponents of the
n teasure had elicited a discussion Which had put the
question in its true light. They had dispelled the
:loud of error which pervaded the country on the sub-
j ect; and now those who had been most anxious
'or the Bill were beginning to see that the sooner they
$ •ot rid, of it '
the better. They saw that it was a Bill of
g sins dud penalties, their eyes had been opened to, the
iggle, and they could not stand it any longer.:. He-
n ,peated, they were not wasting the public time, buten-
de avouring to guard their country and their religion
a" Ohs baftigti9A o thi* Pell4
.ty„„4 -

The Marquis of GRANBY said that the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had just sat down declared that the Pope and
the Roman Catholics did not seek to encroach upon the
Church of England. Nothing could be further from
his (the Marquis of Granby's) wish or intention than
to interfere with the exercise of their religion by the
Roman Catholic or any other sect. But he would read
a passage from the rescript to show what the intentions
of the Pope were :—" And we decree that these our let-
tets apostolioal shall never at any time be objected against
or impugned, on pretence either of omission or of addi-
tion, or defect either of our intention, or any other what-
soever; but shall always be valid and in force, and shall
take effect in all particulars, and be inviolably observed,
ail general or special enactments notwithstanding,
whether apostolic, or issued in synodal, provincial, and
universal councils; notwithstanding, also, all rights and
privileges of the ancient sees of England, and of the
missions, and of the apostolic vicariates subsequently
there established, and of all churches whatsoever, and
pious places, whether established by oath or by apostolic
confirmation, or by any other security whatsoever; not-
withstanding, lastly, all other things to the contrary
whatsoever." He asked Hon. Gentlemen what was the
meaning of those words if they were not directed against
the Established Church of this country?
Mr. MOORE wished to call the attention of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anitey) to a
passage from a book purporting to have been written by
him. That Hon. and Learned Gentleman's speeches
consisted of a series of virulent attacks upon what he
considered the ultramontane spirit of the Roman Ca-
tholics in this country and of the Court of Rome. In the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman's book, which was dedi-
cated to Charles, Bishop of Pella, and vicar apostolic of
the western district, ho found a passage in which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman spoke of ridiculous threats
having been lately made by a small Parliamentary fac-
tion, not without some support from Roman Catholics,
to revive the stupid and unmeaning sayings of other days
against sincere Catholics, whom they termed ultramon-
tane Catholics, but whom his Lordship and his brethren
in the episcopate would estimate at their true and proper
value.
Mr. ANSTEY said that the book from which the
Hon. Gentleman had just quoted contained the enuncia-
tion of the grounds upon which, from the first, he and
those who acted with him had opposed themselves to the
attempt to set up in this country a little Popedom. He
had never attacked the Papal rescript on the ground of
its being an ultramontane document. All the mischief
that flowed from the interference with the rights of the
laity, came not from the Pope but from those councillors
about him, who endeavoured to set up a bastard episco-
pacy in this country. Under this rescript there was no
protection fin. the laity or inferior clergy, who were
placed at the disposal of Cardinal Wiseman and their
bishops, under whose tyranny they bad suffered so much.
Mr. MOORE said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
made his conduct perfectly clear by his explanation.
With respect to the Bill they had been proceeding
hitherto, not without discussion certainly, but without
deliberation; they had not been a deliberative assembly
in any sense, as far as respected the Bill; they were
speaking as from a hustings with reference to their own
election.—(Oh, oh, and uproar.) He moved that the
Chairman report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL must say the House had listened
with remarkable attention. Had the discussion been
confined to the merits of the amendment—to the general
merits of the clause, or to the general merits even of
the Bill, nothing could be more remarkable than
the patience exhibited by the House; but, considering
that Hon. Gentlemen talked upon various other ques-
tions besides that they were discussiog, the patience of
the House had been extraordinary. He could not re-
gard the motion of the Hon. Gentleman as reasonable,
and he should not therefore agree to the motion.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought he had a right to complain,
as the question he had asked had not been answered
from the Treasury bench. He had asked it solely for
the purpose of information. He understood it had been
stated by the law officers of the Crown that the par-
ticular bull or brief mentioned in the clause was un-
lawful, because all bulls were unlawful. His question
then was this:—They admitted that all bulls were
unlawful, and inasmuch as a bishop ordained a
priest, because he was a bishop, without reference to his
title, whether territorial or otherwise, but by virtue of
the bull constituting him a bishop, he wanted to know—
was the ordination a misdemeanor, because it had taken
place in virtue of an unlawful instrument;—and could
any person take proceedings by indictment for that mis-
demeanour against the bishop who ordained the priest in
virtue of his being a bishop?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the question was
a somewhat complicated one. It proceeded on the as-
sumption that all bulls were unlawful, and it might be that
they were so under the Act of Elizabeth. But the Bill
before the House did not declare all bulls illegal and
void; it was confined to bulls and rescripts creating dio-
ceses with territurial titles. It was not at all necessary
for the purposes of this Bill to consider whether bulls
and rescripts generally were illegal or not; or whether
the use of them under the Act of Elizabeth amounted to
a misdemeanour or.not. They were dealing with that
particular Bill, which did not refer to bulls generally.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that the
clause declared all authority conferred under a brief was
illegal; consequently, any act of a bishop appointed
under a brief constituted a misdemeanour, and therefore
the putting of the clause in force was incompatible with
their declaration of not wishing to interfere with the
exercise of the Roman Catholic religion.
The CHAIRMAN inquired if the lion. Member (Mr.
Moore) meant to withdraw his amendment?
Mr. MOORE said he did not intend to withdraw it.
He merely wished, in deference to public opinion, which
he believed by no means approved of the reckless and
unscrupulous manner in which this Bill had been carried
througn the House, to read two or three lines in the
leading article of the Times of that morning, in which
he found these words:—" lc has become more and more
manifest that the lawyers do not understand the law, and
that there is some danger, amid blunders concessions,
and all sorts of crooked and tortuous policy, that the
House may succeed in creating a monster whose future
action shall be something quite different from what was
foreseen, intended, or desired." " The point would
have been fairly raised had the proposition to take the
preamble first been acceded to, and as till it be settled
no legislation can be safe, we sincerely trust that it
will be attended to before the first clause be passed
into a law. Till something can be done towards
arriving at an accurate knowledge of the present
state of the law, it is in vain to hope for satisfac-
tory legislation. The Bill was read a second
time without an agreement in principle, it is now
passing through Committee without either agreement or
knowledge of the law, and the success or failure of its
provisions seems entrusted, in the abeyance of diligence
and default of acumen, to blind chance and fortuitous
combinations." That he believed to be a true represen-
tation of public opinion, condemning tue conduct of that
House in pressing clause after clause, and superseding
amendment after amendment.—(Elear.)
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the proviso ... ... 59
Against it ... ... 344
Majority... --285

Mre J. O'CONNELL said if the Ministry were sin-
cere in their professions of not wishing to interfere with
the purely spiritual acts of the Roman Catholic bishops,
let them introduce some form of words that would dis-
tinctly declare such an intention.
Sir G. GREY said there could be no interference with
spiritual functions by the Bill. It would be incon-
refore, to introduce any such 'movie() in the

purely
sistent, tth.

measure. then put that the clause stand part
The question wa;
of the Bill.
SADLEIR rose to a.. Tove a proviso to the end of
M:. r.
at of the legal effect of
bad :ltogether avoided
by the Hon. and
the Clause. He was still ignore._
:
the Bill. The Noble Lord
touching the legal questions raised
Learned Member for Athlone. The Noble . Ireland
Lord knew
well Vint, it was impossible for the Catholics of
to have a. Church without a hierarchy; and there et:lld
that were afulor some
of
be no hierarchy without a bull or bulls from the Pope.
withT h e
many
Attorney-General
• na wlaory pnienelh'r-sGwoneernseeirn thalsae those
we
re u s apprehensionsf id
most w?— that certain bulls were un-
lawful;
such there should be. He (Mr. Sadleir) participated
disastrous consequences in Ireland if the Bill was passed.
It was all,very well to say that it was declaratory of the
law; but the Attorney-General should state explicitly
which bulls were not illegal. There had been much
quibbling that evening about the Charitable Bequests
Bill; and to test the sincerity of the Government in re-
spect of the. position of the Roman Catholic Church in
Ireland,--especially of the Roman Catholic clergy of the
second order—he proposed a proviso to the effect that
nothing in -the Act should be construed to affect any
archbishop or bishop of the Roman Catholic Church
officiating and exercising the powers and authorities of
such offices, in the same manner and under the same
condition's in regard to discipline, as before the 29th
September, 1850.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not see any, advantage in
entering again into the argument. It had been already
replied to by his Right Hon. Friend, and no more could
be said about it.
Mr. OSWALD said it was important to know what
the law was in Scotland previous to the 29th of \Septems a
-
ber, 1850, before the clause was adopted. There
calledw
statute knOwn in Scotland, as of the year 1567,
the Act Abolishing Popery.—(Laughter.) He would
read the Act.—(Laughter.) It enacted that no subject
of the King _should entertain connexion with ome,
under pain of. banishment, confiscation, or death. R
The
Sm., should
purchasers of rights, finders of finance,
suffer the same; and no bishop should thereafter derive
title or authority from Rome, or if he did, that it should
be illegal and invalid. If that' was the law of S
700cotlhand,
was there any use in passing this. Bill? In 1 tere
was an Act passed ratifying all the statcute4s4, against
Po peed ry ; and the Act 33d George 111.,
ratified
fuh
it did not specifically refer to the statute of 1567.
n der
those circumstances it was very material that the Com-
mittee should:know what had hitherto been the law in
the penalties imposed by the Act of 1700, though
Ud
Scotland upon that subject, and how far the position of
Roman Catholics would be affected by that measure.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he under.
stood4hat the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the
Home Department had stated tlnat that clause would not
affect, spiritual authority or jurist-Act (e Earl
of Arundel and Surrey) very much doubted the accu-
ney of that view- of the case, and he wished to know
whether the Right Hon. Gentleman still adhered to it?
very documents to
Mr. TRELAWNY said he wished to ask the Hon.
and ,Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General whether
under ;bat clause a disaffected .clergyman of the Roman
CatholkoChurch might not proceed against his bishop
sciairidotteht:ttuhee
forwm heTi aschnhu te:Aser, dTcoeQTr owu
oe
del
aaßn
itus:r
oe,yrb:..tyGui producing
n: tsiiordination?
Enrmeasly
theAxeLly. had al
readyinati.ered that question. He had, then, only to
repeat that, under the first clause of the Bill, no suisden

of any act done under the assumption of a territorial
title, and would inflict no penalties whatever.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he be-
lieved that several high legal authorities differed from
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman upon that point.
Mr. BLE WITT wished to know how the Attorney-
General would find the brief or rescript against which he
would proceed under that clause?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had already
answered that question; and he should for the future
decline to answer any question a second time, unless it
were put to him professionally.—(Bear, hear, and a
laugh.) No proceeding could be founded by the Attor•
ney•General upon that first clause. The whole of his
functions with regard to that Bill would be founded on
the second clause.
The Committee then divided, a►nd the numbers were—
For Mr. Sadleir's proviso 57
Against it ... _ 278

Majority against the proviso...
Mr. KEOGH said, as the Attorney-General bed
stated no indictment would lie under this clause, t e
would move thilt no criminal proceedings be taken, cr
indictinent preferred. under or in virtue of this clause.
The CHAIRMAN asked if the Hoe. and Learned
Member intended to move the proviso now ?
Mr. KEOGH said he would give notice of the proviso.
The CHAIRMAN said it was not competent for the
Hon. and Learned Member to do so.
Mr. KEOGH would then propose the proviso at
once.

Mr. REYNOLDS moved that the Chairman report
pryress.

- The question being put.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would not divide on the
question. It was now quite clear that Hon. Members
had been making the same motion over and over again,
that they had pine into the lobby with small minori-
ties, and that they had afterwards math) the same mo-
tion in other words and in other shapes, which had been
previously rejected. It was sufficiently obvious that was
a course against all notions of proceeding in Committee;
ho should, therefore, agree to postpone further proceed-
ings that night, to give Hon. Members time to reflect on
their conduct, which he did not think they would be in-
clined to repeat again, when they saw that public
opinion must condemn them.--(Cheers.)
Mr. REYNOLDS rose, but was met at every word
by a volley of " Oh's," which at last silenced the Hon.
Member.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked
leave to sitagain,we understood, on Thursday.

ST. Al BAN'S BRIBERY COMMISSION.

On the motion for going into Committee,
Mr. BANKES objected at that late hour to go on
with the measure, and would move that the House do ad-
journ.
Mr. J. ELLICE, jun., had said the clause he wished to
add was a mere matter of form, but necessary to autho-
rise certain expenses that must be incurred.
Mr. BANKES must persist in his motion, as by his
mode he proposed to spare public money.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
some expense must be incurred let the inquiry be con-
ducted in any way whatever.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ...
Against it

... 19
... 59

Majority against the:adjournment... —4O
The House then went into Committee.
The preamble was understood to have been proposed.
On the proposition of some of the clauses,
Colonel SIBTHORP moved that the Chairman should
report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. ELLICE said it was desirable that they should
proceed then with the measure.
Mr. BANKES said the principle iavolved in the clause
before them ought at least to receive one fair discussion
in that House, which could not take place at that hour
—half-past one o'clock.—(Hear.)

Colonel SIBTHORP announced his intention of per..
severing with his motion.
The Committee; then divided, when there appeared—.
For the motion ...
Against it... ...
Majority
The Committee were then proceeding to pass the
clause, when
Mr. BANKES moved the omission of the word
" salaries."

... 50