The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

effect w
ith
respect to temporali ies. That principle was ad-
kaulitteui;icaseshy Dr. Wisenian; and, by Mr. Bowp-r in his ableZ
et, In cases where oish.ips having territorial dis-
et, ps claimed the right of appointing priests to benefices,
that right being resisted by Roman Catholic laymen, or
of
of the merely exercising ecclesiastical functions, the force
canon law, if an appeal were made to the Court of
tracery, the appointment of the former would stand, or if
Ile anointment of the latter were in force, the Court would
those priests from their benefices. Now this was an
illustration of the mode in which the canon law could come
4176 force. It might, therefore, be introduced to a consider-
it extent with respect to temporal matters, and be believed
ritild be most unjust to allow trustees to be appoicted by
„,Greigtl potentate, or through the nomination of a foren
tleatate, to exercise those temporal rights over persona
potLlg in this country. This was the case of a foreign
lk,-',tata appointing and having control over bishops,
'" Which means they
.would exercise control over British
that
He believed he spoke the truth when he said
he
t there were no spiritual functions which could not
foPeJformed in all respects by persons exercising episcopal
e"aus as by territorial bishops. He had not heard
411,,
gentletnan mention a matter of spiritual interest which
(aired the bishop of a territorial district to perform. -
',tie: r, hear.) Did ordination, collation to benefices, clispen-
lit 14 the administration of governments—did any one of
bileiBle matters require to be exclusively performed by the
of a territorial district? He invited Honourable
4emen who spoke after him, to mention, if they could,
toy spiritual ,
Pirt matters which could be administered by the
'QaP of a territorial diocese, but could not be administered
tti bishop nut belonging to a territorial district. Now, if
a
/tett be so—and if the appointment of territorial bishops does
th teach the spiritual but the temoral part of the matter,
.ea it wag idle to talk about this measure being an act of
crleetition and tyrannising over the Roman Catholics. It
tb,l4 not a measure to interfere with the rights, and func-
treat, and freedom of religion, but a measure to check and
thel a direct species of machinery which transferred into
ki "Qs of a foreip potentate certain property to a con-
% stable extent belonging to the inhabitants of this
lietilltrY. and allowed that foreign potentate to deal with it.
441." ever complained that the full performance of spiritual
cholla had not been carried out within the last fifty
Claitim
re in this country by vicars-apostolic?—(Hear, hear.)
.42E hoer matters stood in the Bill before the House.
oitl, li
tilouse was now asked to read the Bill a ,
" e intention on the part of the Government second
to omit
%4 the clauses except the first clause. He admitted there
% difference between the case of England and Ireland in
matters. In Ireland, for three hundred years, the Ro-
orT:Ca tholic Church had heen. governed by means of bishops
erntorial dioceses, while in this country that system
existed.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite obvious that it
t::/ different matter to put an end to a system tat had
ietl:ted for three centuries, and to prevent its introduction
55 a eountry where bishops of territorial distric were
G recognized. That was a strong reason why the latter
tiwke of the Bill should not
had obe a
thpplughtied to
fit Ireland. He re-
etd that t to reject thore
50..11444 and to confine the Bill to the first clause. With re-
,
to the opinion given by Mr. Bethell, of the Chancery
viiit.tespecting the operation of the Bill, he did not agree
"i that opinion, but he should state how far he considered
loneOrrect. It was undoubted law that a contract or liability
hi..."glit to be established in a court of law by a person calling
lo'lelf Archbishop of Westminster could be enforced. No
ctila
tgar would they dispute that proposition. The Court of
the Archbishop
would only look whether the person styling himself
Archbishop of Westminster was clearly entitled to the
4.14 which he bed made. To this extent, and this ex-
would the second claim be included in the first.
•avr of Ireland for the last 21 years was the same as now
h.-Posed, and in no court of justice was any case raised, and
tt was sure his Learned Friends of tha English bar would
ktree admit that at no bar could there be found mote as-
*iv! More learned, or able gentlemen than those connected
he. LI the Irish bar.— (Hear, hear.) They would take an ob-
tht,4oll to the system if they could, and the House woo d find
i
t during that length of time that no interference what-
Chl/r was attempted with the concerns of the Roman Catholic
die.rell in that country. He admitted there was a considerale
hotlreace between the case of Ireland and that of England,
c.„ 'men objections were made against the Bill on that ac-
Cult, the House would allow him to call their attention to
to: Veration of the clause. The Bill proposed to do nothing
1111:1 than this; it said that if new bishops were made in
nd ad they should be exactly in the same position as the
th and that if new ones were appointed in this country,
4 should be placed in the same position as the Irish
of 11,(1)11 Hear, hear.) Now that was really the effect
te",..?_ Bill, and where was the monstrous persecution
the7eich they had heard so much, and against which
kodeople had been stirred up to the depths of their in-
Ile feelings ?—(Cheers.) Surelygthere must be some-
leiltlgniore in it than what there appeared on the surface.
Of bie3,l! similar measure was introduced into the Relief Act
0111,4, was it not then considered a great boon, and did any
the"&elnan say then, lk at the tyranny which existed, and
Thy outrage offered tomen's consciences ?—(Hear, hear.)
-eta
tiod where was the abandonment of the principle of civil
eh.e.eligious freedom? So far from it, that when, in 1829,
boil existing for three hundred years was changed in
thetau, no complaint was raised against it ; and where was
dship, or why exclaim against it, when introduced
this country to meet a case for the first time, and when
thereallY different system formerly existed? It was,
strange that it should be said this was a
tlic."o,sti of civil and religious liberty; and, as regarded
English Members who opposed the measure, he be-
te yd it was done from a belief that the Queen ought not to
e
Of%th Supreme head of any church. That was the cause
! great schism which occurred in the Scottish Church,
pee ',Oat opinion was also entertained by a great mass of the
j 4 of this country. With respect to the observations
41,71 by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, that the present
kiaosure was a persecution of Roman Catholics, he (tl'e
rues-General) did not think his Honourable and Learned
eittlld himself believed it. He, for one, and those connected
cllia; had the strongest possible affection for his Raman
atholic fellow-subjects, and desired that they should have
fullest and freest exercise of their religion; and sorry
et
%Jr:lld he feel, were he a party to any act which would re-
ltiD.l,4l, them in that exercise in the slightest degree. His
tar Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, in his eloquent
44:14brilliant speech, which was listened to by the douse with
too Ileh admiration as pleasure—(Cheers) - referred to a per-
-1514g0.in a spech of his made on the occasion when the Di-
Lk, atic Relations Bill was before the House. His Right
hi',„:. Friend would, however see, if the House would allow
ktZ to refer to that passage, that his opinions then were in
b„'tt accordance with those which he now entertained. In
liLat of fact, what he then said might be fairly construed
a prophecy of what occurred in September last. A
Won was proposed by the Hon. Member for Lambeth
(4' C. Pearson), and in resisting it, he (the Attorney-
ilk, etc) said that as the law now stood, the Pope may
it eel out the county as he pleased, and if the motion were
teed to his power would still be the same, but that the
only mode of preventing it was to open diplomatic
tae,`ialle with the See of Rome.—(Hear, hear.) Now that
lim7t nothing more than this—namely, that be was de-
Cus there should be a Bill to prevent such a measure as was
to:,,ilvards introduced, and that opinion was strictly in ac-
nirace with the opinions he then held. Thera certainly
hop nothing in the law as it stood to prevent the assump-
tot af ecclesiastical titles, and parcelling out a territory
teetcilciaceses in England was not illegal ; and as to the sug-
Ituti'lls thrown out that a prosecution ought to have been
tho ed. he acknowledged that he and his Learned Friend
tit, oolicitor-General were most reluctant to do so, an&
tityri.gl7 dissuaded the Government from having recourse to
!Iblv '4,91 proceeding.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The
It ,'„euence committed was that of publishing the bull ; and
eeol-41ght to be recollected that every newspaper in the
vVio,`„,rl committed the same offence as Cardinal
aliter,`"ati in that respect. Then with respect to
stopdiplo-
tln relations with Rome, it ought to be recollected that
„raeasure was rendered inoperative and inefficient, be-
liha Noble Lord had in another place introduced clauses
~440te eanipletely crippled the measure, and yet that Noble
-I,yras now opposed to the present Bill.- (Cries of
tett7) hear.") He thought then, as he thought now, that
etift...t.ineasuee would have prevented what has since oc-
and every subsequent circumstance confirmed him,
tare itwas a misfortune of no ordinary kind that that mea-
Of tkuld not pass into a law.—(Hear, hear.) The law officers
tho,:',e Crown could not bring an action, nor did they feel
it*raelves justified in prosecuting under old and obsole'e
Its.4ll,!e`,' and the only remedy, therefore, which remained,
ttto • legislative enactment and a legislative declaration that
Pe act complained of was illegal, and imposing certain
af COLea in case of its being violated. The Roman Catholics
lot thal country were a body of men peculiarly remarkable
af [Zeit loyalty to the Throne, and their zeal for the interests
troths country. In saying that he did not make any excep-
t their favour to the prejudice of other portions of the
trll4ltaLlinity who are equally loyal, but it would now be seen
taxi tier in their obedience to the law they would show their
T115,Y to continue in the course they had so long followed.
loti..,4tight Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon bad
414;41, the present Bill a measure of persecution_ , bat
t.o* Y he could not compare it as such with the
otpkation of the Edict of Nantes, or in any way approach-
otat7klat might be fairly termed a persecution for religious
tet,,,batul- He' ad also, in a peculiarly touching manner, re-
ttlif,'" to one by whom he was bound by every tie, and to
4,_-2141 principles he owed the position he enjoyed in that
bot7Le. Those were the principles in which he was educated ;
ti he believed it was perfectly consistent with those prin-
fellrui to adopt the course which henow felt himself bound to
to "v. But perhaps his Right Hon. Friend would allow him
peeler to a speech of his made on the 30th of March, 1835,
!,,the appropriation clause. In that speech his Right Hon.
toesnd said, " It may be said that I am deviating from
:O se general Whig principles on which I acted since I
:o,tered into public life—and if I might venture to define
La.` !in, I should say they consisted in liberty of thought or
j.`ition in all matters political and religious consistent with
17W, order, and constituted authority. lam for no death's
he:d and cross-bones—for no prayers of mercy limited to
Votiveui but not to earth, because a Roman Catholic
otter would not go a certain way. I feel the
tloZ9st jealousy of Popery as an instrument of political
krnation—(Hear, hear, and loud cheering)--an ardent
ii‘j uncompromising attachment to the Protestant religion
o4ruY law established."—(Cheers.) He (the Attorney-Ge-
tooel) fully concurred in those sentiments, and with the
fere" anxious wish that the prevnt measure would not inter-
te With that harmony now happily existing between both
ee:tries, with a ifncere desire that the prosperity now
%Attiing on that country should not be blighted by anything
th* 'tad occurred, he felt bound conscientiously to vote for
tlecond reading of the Bill.—(Cheers.)
L(1).• W. FAGAN moved the adjournment of the debate.
tll4 td JOHN RUSSELL said he was not going to oppose
ilesalotion for the adjournment of the debate; but consi-
ti4g' the extent and ability of the arguments used on both
‘lll Ai he hoped the House would look forward to a division
Tkondav night.
the motion for the adjournment was then agreed to, and
I I,lebate was accordingly adjourned till Monday next.
t() e Consolidated Fund (8,000,000/0 Bill passed through
Aikittee.
MITCHELL moved for a Select Committee to in-
t e Into the constitution ani management of the Board of
Lot Iporns.
4e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he should
t,,
slut s'PPose the motion, but he hoped his Hon. Friend would
coo 'ansider his consent to the motion as at all implying a
The
on his part as to the necessity for it.
e motion was then agreed to.
kr it, LABOUCHERE moved for leave to introduce a Bill
4,4-'5 better amendment of the navigation-laws relating to
atoel-vessels, with a view to prevent overcrowding, and to
Pr Proper accommodation to passengers. He should also
okase to extend the Act to sailing
lio4 Ri vessels.
eman SIDNEY wished to know whether the steam-
tick .Plying on the Thames would come within the opera-
()Ube A t
c •
• LABOUCHERE replied they would be included in
e
Col
onel SIBTHORP gave notice that on the motion for
Dip into Supply he should move for the production of the
Of ttr granting an additional 500/. a year to the chairman
tote Commissioners of Inland Revenue • and also call at-
haJan to the increasing nuisance of the hu
VI organs in the streets of London. ge itinerant
te 'louse then adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

titt:iiLie Marchioness of Lansdowne was somewhat better. yea
""Y morning. Her Ladyship is At 330w00d Park, Wilts.