The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-19 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING,

tion, the agitation of interested men, and was not at all the
spontaneous feeling of the English nation. That was a state-
ment it was not worth while to refute.-(Hear, hear.)
Whatever might be his opinion on the merits of the Bill, or
on the necessity of doing anything, no man who knew what
had been passing in this country could entertain the slightest
doubt, or dare to deny, that that agitation was a movement
of the whole Protestant body of the country-( Hear, hear)
-and he said, that while he treated with respect and de-
ference the opinions of those who differed front him on reli-
gious questions, yet, as attached to the British Constitution,
and the liberty and freedom of thoughtand action which
belonged to that Constitution, he should be sorry indeed
that anything should take place that --should shake the
political Protestant establishment of the kingdom in
which he had the happiness to live.-(Hear, hear.)
Then he said, that the voice of the people of
Eegland required that something should be done.-(Hear,
hear.) Dia eltight Hon. Friend said that what the Govern-
ment had proposed was not the proper thing to do. If he
could understand • 'at all the vague suggestions of his Right
lion. Friend-(.4 laugh)7he should infer that what ho
would have proposed would have been, to hare entered into
some negotiation with the Court of Rome. His Right, Hon.
Friend said, he thought it was absurd to legislate igainst
our own sukjects: Ile (Lord Palmerston) presumed that his
Right Hon. Friend did net mean that they were to 1t islate
aganst the Pope - (A lavgli)eefer if he thought our laws
would not he obeyed by ourselves, surely he could not ima-
gine they wiitild have much force with the Pope-( A laugh)
hi.; Bight Him. ;Friend very properly reputliate.t ;tie idea
that had been out by that they ought to have
sent a hostile fori:e to Civita Vecchia. He agreerwith his
lion. Friend that bulls Were not properly met 'by cannon-
balls. - (A ) He w s quite of his Right Hon. Fr end's
opinion that teat was not a course ti-ting fur this -country to
pnrsue, or „likely to lead to 'any -sitisfactOry resu4.7-(Hear,
hear.) But hen he said he thought it would be unbecoming
in this country to meet an net of unpr'ivoked &egression by
sending an envoy to sue from the Bishop of Rome..e-(Hear.)
lie thought the dignified and proper course for this country
to take was to legislate -for, itself and not to go to Pope
and say, " You have done th,t which has been a gteat affront.
You have done that which we look upon as a gres Violation of
our national independence, and an infringeme.nt on the
sovereignty of the Queen, and therefore we coney:to you to
do something-eeither .to retract. what you have done or to
modify it in some degree." • Of course our suit'evould have '
been rejected, and in what a humiliating positiou should we
have stood' under such circumstances 1-( &aril:leer.) He
eves quite ready to admit that it would have beenvery incon-
sistent with the course which either the members of the Go-
vernment or the majority of the Legislature bed pursued if
they had proposed to Parlialpent anything tiial,would have
justified its being called a penal or persecuting enactment.
He must in passing, say, however, that when, he saw the
letters and declarations emanating from Roman Catholic
ecclesiastics eeteing up the' cry-of fanaticism ,and persecu•
tion, and intolerance, and looked-to the courseof proceeding
in regard to toleration that prevailed in cOunteys where the
Romish pr esthood were dominant, he felt tempted to ex-
claim, " Quis tulerit Gracehos!" The wordsl:fg persecution
and intolerance" were surely words that Catholic prelates
ought most studiously to eschew.-(Hear.) -But he, for
one, never ,would consent to be a party- to ghat was pro-
perly called a penal enactment; and he utterly denied that
the Bill now proposed deserved in' any sense. whatever to
be so stigmatized. -(Hear, hear.) In point, et fact, it was
merely a complement of the measure which removed from
the Catholic people of England the disabilities under which
they laboured. The Bill of 1829 prohibited catholic pre-
lates from taking the titles of sees, or.o any diocese or
province which belonged to the British establishment. Whe-
ther by accident or not, it omitted to extend that prohibi-
tion to otherplaces in the realm. . Bnt was the law consi-
dered as a mere protection for the English Church ? He
would not accept it on so limited a ground ias that. He
held that the law of 1829 Was to be a defence of the sove-
reignh-
rights of the country ; and it was to . defended, and
justly, on the ground that they would not epertnit a foreign
authority out of the United Kingdom to giVe to any person
titles derived from any place within the United Kingdom.
He contended,therefore, that the Bill nowleefere the !douse
was in principle precisely the same as the Aet of 1829, and
that it made good the gap that was left in that ,Act; and he
was extremely surprised that any persons whO were parties
to that Act, whether the proposers or suppelters of it, should
tin principle object to the measure the Goverment had new
proposed.- (Hear,. hear.) :The Bill thatc‘:preposed was,
in its principle, exactly' on the same ground as
the measure which formed part of the arrange-
ments of the Emancipation Act; and he contended, further,
that being on the same groUnd as that measure, it could not
be justly deemed as partaking in any. degree of a penal or
persecuting character.-(Hear, beer.) ..14, was said the
Catholic Church required officers of the ran3/470f bishops, but
for 250 years the Catholic ~Church, in tilts country had
gone on with vicars apostOlic, and he Red heard in the
course of this debate no satisfactory reason!'why, with vicars
apostolic, it might not still go on as heretofore.- (Hear,
hear.) He contended upon these various efipunds, that the
measure that was new proposed applied dioatly to the evils
for which a remedy was demanded-(Heck hear)-he con-
tended that it imposed no restriction on the Catholic hierarchy
in this country which wasinConsistant Witliithelperformance
of their sacred duty-(Hear, hear)-and to those who said
they thought the measure, it pased; Woula be inoperative,
would be of no effect, would not be obeyedel he would reply
that he wholly differed from teem in.thettopinion-( Hear,
hear) -he considered that if, on the' one hand,. it was a
peculiar characteristic of the Church cOotne to be ag-
gressive and enc. ()aching, on the Other kind, it was also
characteristic of that Church to be obedient to laws, to re-
spect enactments, and to make its aggressions and its en-
croachments wiliout openly violating the slaws of the land
in which it was operating.-(Hear, hear.) Judging from
past experience of the Irish Roman Cathblics, he did not
contemplate that this measure, if passed into a law, would
be disobeyed by the Roman Catholic bishops of this country.
- (Hear, hear.) He believed, too, that the measure would
meet the general feeling of the British people; and it was not
to be forgotten that there was nothing in the measure to pre-
clude the Legislature from taking furthee:steps, if further
steps were required, which he earnestly hoped would never
be the case.-(Cheers.)
On the motion of Mr. 11. BERKELEY; the debate was
then adjourned to Thursday.
The House adjourned at Twen'y minutes past Twelve
o'clock.