The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 26, 1851.

right to hear the opinions of the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the first law officer for Ireland, sitting below
—(Much laughter, arising from the circumstance tisat j
the Hon. Member di s alluded t seas Mr. Bernal, and not ;
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who we believe was I
not in the House.) He thought the House had also a right
to knew the opinions of the Secretary for Ireland.—(Cheers
from the Irish Members.) For himself, regarding the mew,
sure as one of persecution, he should eppose the Bill.
Sir P. THESIGER believed it to be, the general wish—he
wished he could say it was the general expectation of the
House, that the House should come to a division toenight.—
(Hear, hear.) He felt that he was about to speak upon an
exhausted subject, and to a wearied audience; but he most
earnestly desired to explain his views, in order that the
course he was about to pursue might not be mistaken. It
was almost impossible to express an opinion upon this subject
without giving offence to the religious feslings of a portion
of the community. Protestants believed that an unjust
aggression bad been committed. Roman Catholics, on the
other hand, thought that the course that had been adopted
of repressing that aggression involved an invasion of civil
and religious liberty. Now, he was anxious to hear how
the Bill proposed to carry out the proposed object of the
Noble Lord. - ( Hear, hear.) He had not heard any
satisfactory explanation of the mode in which the mea-
sure before the House would repress the present aggression,
or raise any barrier to prevent similar acts in future
( Hear, hear.) If a person's object were to prevent the
assault of an adversary he thought he would not
be content with warding off the blow aimed at him, but that
sound policy required that he should disable his opponent
from further mischief —(Hear.) Now, what had led to this
aggression? He did not believe that any Roman Catholic
Member of that House had explained that any religious ne-
cessits' had existed for the important change made by the
Papal brief.—(Hear, hear.) It might be supposed that a full
explanation upon this point would be given in the not very
reasonable, calm, or temperate appeal of the new Cardinal to
the reason and good feeling of the English pe ple. There, if
anywhere, would surely be found an explanation of the reli-
gious wants of the Roman Catholic people, and so able a
reasoner would certainly not lose sight of the importance of
such an argument in favour of the Pope. Cardinal Wise-
man alleged that the object was to introduce "the real and
complete code of the Church ;" that for this purpose the Ro-
man Catholics must have a hierarchy. He said that the
canon law was inapplicable under vicars. apostolic, that be-
sides, there were many points that required to be synodically
adjusted, -and that, without a metropolitan and suffragans,
a provincial synoi was out- of the question. " There
might have been other motives. Was there n ,thing in the
circumstances of the present time which made the Pope be-
lieve that he might succeed in advancing his power and
authority in this country ? There bad been many deplorable
defections from the Established Church - many had embraced
some of the most characteristic doctrines of the Church of
Rome, and some conscientious but ill-judging men, were de-
sirous of reviving forms and ceremonies which had become
obsolete in the Protestant Church because they di i not tend
to edification. Others wished to restore the gorgeous cere-
monies of the Roman Catholic religion. The language used
by some of our statesmen, too, might have conveyed to the
Elope tlie impression that any interference on his part in
creating a new order of bishops would not be resented.—
( Hear, hear.) Above all, he believed a misapprehension had
been entertained with regard to the depth of the Protestant
feeling which ran with so strong a current through the life
blood of the country. He was entitled to assume that it was
not from any religious necessity this step had been taken,
and, therefore, so far as England was concerned, we were
called on to resist the aggression, and by means of legis-
lation to prevent the intrusion of any foreign autho-
rity upon us in the manner proposed. But Ireland had, for
a long series of years, possessed her Roman Catholic bishops
with the titles of Irish sees. The use of these titles had been
permitted and sanctioned, and therefore the Government,.
after having by their connivance justified the course pursued
by the Irish bishops, had no right now to extend their legis-
lation to the sister island.—(Hear, hear.) His Right HOH
Friend (Sir J. Graham) in the course of his remarkable
speech said that in 1792 an Irish Act had passed for banish-
ing all the archbishops and bishops from Ireland, but that,
so strong was the feeling in favour of complete religious
toleration, that next year, in 1793, that Act was repealed.
He was astonished to hear that statement, and thought it
right to app'y to his Right Hon. Friend to know on what
authority he made it. His Right Hon. Friend said that the
Duke of Wellington, in the debate of 1829, made this asser-
tion in the presence of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Eldon, and
Lord Tenterden, and that he (Sir J. Graham) thought him-
self entitled in consequence to consider it correct. Now lie
(Sir F. Thesiger) had since satisfied himself that no such Act
was passed in 1792 (Cheers)—and he need not say that no
Act was passed in 1793 to repeal that Act.—(Hear, hear.)
By the Act of 1782 Roman Catholic ecclesiastics were per-
mitted to remain in Ireland upon registering themselves.
But there was a most extraordinary exception in the eighth
section, —that nonperson was entitled to the benefit of that
Act who assumed or took any ecclesiastical rank or title
whatever.—( Hear, hear.) In the Act of 1795, on which the
college of Maynooth was founded and endowed, the Roman
Catholic prelates were named after all the laity, and they
were named, not by their titles as bishops, but as doctors of
divinity.—(Hear, hear.) The practice, therefore, of assum-
ing ecclesiastical titles was entirely contrary to law In-
deed, the Acts against the assumption of ecclesiastical rank
and title in Ireland by Roman Catholics were stronger than
any passed in England. It was said that, because by the
Act of 1829 a penalty was attached to the assumption of
titles of particular sees, that Act was a virtual repeal, as to
all other titles, of all the Acts passed up to that time. But
every lawyer knew that one affirmative Act did not repeal
another, unless one was irreconcilable with the other.
(Hear, hear.) The Roman Carbolic B quests Act of 1844
recognized the status of the Roman Catholic bishops; and in
1847 Earl Grey, as Colonial Secretary, wrote the following
circular to the governors of colonies: -
" But, as Parliament has by a recent Act (that relating to
Charitable Bequests in Ireland) formally recognised the rank
of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates by giving them pre-
cedence immediately after the prelates of the Established
Church of the same degree, . . . it has appeared to her
Majesty's Government that it is their duty to conform to the
rule thus laid down by the Legislature."
No doubt the House was perfectly familiar with the Chari-
table Bequests Act. Now, the Legislature laid down in that
Act no regulations with respect to Roman Catholic prelates
-- (Hear) —and thereferz the Noble Lord was acting under a
complete mistake in exercising authority of a very important
description by giving that rank to Roman Catholic bishops
in the col nies—a rank which, he thought, corresponded
wi h that which the Legislature prescribed.—(Hear, hear.)
True, there was a Commission issued under that Act by the
Queen in Council, giving to the Roman Catholic prelates
certain rank, corresponding to their style and title; but it
was quite unnecessary to say, that although the Queen could
give any rank or precedence to any one of her subjects as she
pleased, yet the rank given to the Roman Catholic prelates
under that Commission applied only to that Commission,
and did not extend beyond it.—(Cries of " Hea-, hear.")
It, therefore, seemed to him, that the B'shop of Sydney
was justified in the opinion he expressed, as stated in the
papers recently laid before the House, that the m .re fiat of
the Colonial Sec•etary, without the sanction of the Sove-
reign, was not sufficient to confer that rank on the colonial
bishops. (Hear.) So stood the question as to the assump-
tion of titles in Ireland, and be apprehended there was
nothing in these historical details that could justify any
one in saying that the situation of Ire and was so pe-
culiar and so distinct from that of England that the
blow which had been aimed at the Queen's sovereigty in
England, and which was a warning to us to defend that
sovereignty against a similar blow in any part of her do-
minions, was to prevent us from taking that warning and
from extending our legislation so far as we thought ne•
cessary for protecting that sovereignty in every part of the
Queen's dominions.—(Hear, hear.) And was there nothing
in what had occurred which rendered the legislation im-
perative ? The Pope knew perfectly well that the
difficulty of the Noble Lord -as it had been the dif-
ficulty of ever)' Government—was the kingdom of
Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He knew perfectly well there might
be danger to the Noble Lord if he extended his legislation to
tie sister kingdom. What did he do? In the very midst of
the popular ferment be created a Bishop of Ross.— (Hear,
hear.) He threw down the gauntlet of defiance—(Sear)
and he compelled the Noble Lord either to abandon that
which was his duty—(Hear, hear)—or to involve himself
in all the difficulties which had occurred to him by affirming
boldly, and as he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought justly, that the
measure should extend to Ireland.—(Hear, hear. ) And,
now, how was the law with respect to the introduction of
bu up to the year 1829, and after that period? We had
in their perfect integrity certain Acts of Parliament to pre-
vent the introduction of bßuilelhsairndton.t,heisalcioeduntthrye—sotnaeubteeinogf
E has early as the rtehieg
Prcemunire, an astatute of lizabet , which had been so
cien y protected t
frequently referred to. The Emancipation Act was passed,
I bulls or documents
s
cestslary any ofthohs'e
butk in gt,
ooms e
from s t at uttke
es
intrusionrena ainedo,
of any
spuuatnlipnae'
of a similar character, and rendering
tadapted
s'weraefnteort
to the situation of a Protestant kingdom; but, year
1829, placets and
1829, we began a system which he was almost
Ilear, hear
one of inconsiderate kin 'ness and indulgence.—( , ,)
afraid to call
al encroachment. —We one by one removed from our statute-book the different
securities that hid existed against Pap
( Hear.) We broke down the battlements of ourforts—ste
Y
dismantled our citadel, and we afforded a free opportunit to
. ) e any person disposed to take advantage of our d
ti_isableared coThn-
dition to march in and take possession.—(
Noble Lord, even under the disabled circumstances in which
he was placed, never apprehended any such encroachment
as this that had taken place, and the words of the Noble Lord
were rather remarkable. In August, 1846, he said :
u Let us suppose that there is some bull introduced into
this country similar to those we have heard of in former
days. Let us suppose, though it is almost extravagant to
suppose it, that there was any attempt of the Pope to assert
any sovereign authority in these realms, or to interfere with
the Queen's autht rity, my belief is that no such bull would be
observed by any Roman Catholic, but that it would be a dead
letter ; and thus much I am sure of, that if any person acted
contrary to his allegiance in consequence of such a
he would be punishable according to the laws of this country.'
—(Hear.) Now, a brief, which was equivalent to a bull,
had been introduced. The Noble Lord himself bad characte-
rised that document, and it might be as well to put the
Noble Lord's celebrated letter in juxtaposition with that cele-
brated passage from his speech in the year 1848, to see how
completely he was deceived and misled by a blind confidence
in the forbearing intention of the Papal See—(Hear, hear),
—and how little the Noble Lord was prepared for this attempt.
The Noble Lord said in his letter :
" There is an assumption of power in all the documents
which have come from Rome—a pretension to supremacy
over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided
sway which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with
the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual
independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catho-
lic times.
Well, this brief unexpectedly, and to the astonishment of the
Noble Lord, made its appearance ou our shores. There was
a strong popular ferment throughout the country. The
Noble Lord saw the rising storm; he watched its progress,
and at last, after some little deliberation, lie turned his
face in the direction to which the popular gale was blow-
ing, and issued the letter from which he had just read the
passage. Now, the Noble Lord in that letter stated that the
law would be very carefully examined, in order that it
might he brought intooperation against any person who had
offended it. The people exulted in such a champion of their
rights and their dearest interests—in such a defender of their
faith as the Noble Lord, and they reposed in pe, feet security
on the promises of the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) The law, it
was admitted, was sufficient for the purpose of punishing this
aggression—that had been admitted in this debate by the
Noble Lord and other Hon. Members. Why, then, was ILA
the law carried into effect?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
said it was considered not to be expedient to carry out
the law, because it had in a degree become obsolete, and
might be regarded as rather a harsh proceeding if old Acts
of Parliament, that had been buried a long time, and were
almost dead letters in our statute book, were to be revived
for the purpose of carrying them into operation in conse-
quence of what had occurred. He should have thought,
them that inasmuch as those Acts of Parliament, particu-
larly the Act of Elizabeth, had been under consideration in
1814 and OA they would have given them a modern dress,

LPititnal" matter? He (Mr.Muntz) called it ex-
Zlegly temporal.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") He
iZod give the ham of a gel:Bra:nen who had p-r-coal
lin *ledge of the tran,action. The question before the
48e was not one of civil and religious liberty. This
eiti"
tary had been subjected to a great and impudent ag-
tsiene which was the foundation of a premeditated and
le teat attack on the Protestantism of Europe.--(Hear.)
tate feather would it be in the cap of the Pope were he
idl, topay of the people of this country. " See, how I have
ikb
ihotted them ! Have I not wade bishops for ;England ?
le, I not superseded their very church ?" He would
tb
eit's best to support the independence of the Pro-
*et religion, believing it for the interestof the
tate. try that the Protestant religion should be maintained.
never would have it said by hie children that he had gone
titl et the way to encourage the influence and increase of a
jaicle which, in his opinion, did not conduce to the inte-
3„t ec the prosperity of the country.
tu% SCULLY thought the speech of the lion. Member for
ingham would have• answered very well before the
te:leg of the Emancipation Act, for it was directed against
01 Catholic religion. How the so-called aggression affected
// Packets or persons of any one in this country, he could
;le euderstanr/. The receipt only gave to England what had
itlated in Ireland for 14 centuries. As a friend of religious
ifY he opposed the Bill. Members of other persuasions
L.' the Roman Catholic had denied that any aggression had
el" cbunnitted • and the number of Roman Catholics having
Zeised from '67,000 in 1763, to upwards of 1,000,000,1
.01- chapels now exceeding 800, and colleges, monasteries,
other institutions having sprung up, there were good
76-a why a change should be made in the mode of govern-
Le the Roman Catholic Church in this country. What had
adone could not be undone. The total withdrawal of a
tle or reecript was very rare ; and there was no reas in for
initlidrawal of the rescript establishing a hierarchy. The
in and Learned Member for Plymouth had shown that the
feapage used in creating vicars-apostolic was similar to
7.4 titled in the rescript. There was just as much aggres-
lc RI appointing vicars-apostolic as in appointing bishops.
tae Bill would place the Roman Catholics of England in
wYferent position from the Roman Catholies in the wilds
ft`lestralia or the back settlements of Canada. If the pee-
ertiv.es of the Crown had been invaded, it might be asked
rather these prerogatives did not extend to the colonies?
toile if. the State paid the Roman Catholic bishops in the
ly,°4ies. why not allow them to exist here on the voluntary
'The results of the present proceeding would
heief a melancholy• and serious character as re-
e4' Ireland, where the Roman Catholic hierarchy was
taegubled by law and custom, by Courts, in Acts of Parlia-
ke:tt and in the very proceedings of the House of Com-
8. The 24tiesection of the Act of 1829 had been vir-
CY repealed by subsequent proceedings; for no chaplain
h,14 be, appointed to a. workhouse without the recommenda-
eef the Romer' Catholic bishop; and under the Cha-
Cote Bequests Act the title of a parish priest to whom a
oest was left must be proved by his credentials received
17, altoman Catholic bishop. The statement of the Hon
71Learned-Member for Dundalk on the effect of the clause
hi
-the Bill taken in connexion with the preamble had not
answered. In his pastoral of February, 1851, Arch-
°P', Murray sail the Biil, though nominally directed
VIAL Catholic bishops, was in reality directed against
arch
religion; and Dr. Ryan had expressed the feeling
eIOVI pervaded Ireland, where the Bill was regarded ,with
thal era!l detestation, when he stated at a public meeting
1;41 if chi Government waned to ruin the country they
(' not, have adopted a measure more certain to produce
jet effect. These were the opinions not of persona who
!"! accustomed to take part in politics, but of men of re-
habits, who interfered little in the public questions of
hp4y,—(Hear) It was said that public opinion pressed
,‘4
!gislation on this subject. He believed that there was a
‘rlll- party .in the country anxious for -legislation, but
r. Principal object was to cover up and conceal the dis-
le!tyne that prevailed in the Church of England itself. He
taTiked the House against being led away by a cry of danger
eirc Church e a cry which, as the great Grattan observed,
ece'aterays been mischievous to the country ; and he trusted
14,ttause would consider seriously the consequences likely
011tiee from their yielding to a cry so fallacious and foolish.
tillit'ar.) Strong charges had been made against Roman
th.holica of holding a divided allegiance, but he maintained
littthe Roman Catholics of this country held as undivided
tkilllegiance to the Crown as the moat loyal of their Protes-
t fellow-countryman could, possibly do. At the passing
he Emancipation Act in 1829 an illustrious Royal Duke
&Mother place gave full testimony to this undivided alle-
i iZee on the part of Roman Catholics. The same loyalty
Clued them now as then, and he hoped no further attempts
tZeiti beg made in the course of the debate to impugn the
`l,ct and character of Roman Catholics upon that head.
Our emtr.) If proof were necessary to satisfy the House
40:e the-loyalty of that portion of their fellow-subjects, he
li„lslt.refer•to the evidence given before the Committee of
Nell
by the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, in which he explicitly
Nell that the autho ity of the Pope was confined alto-
Neer to spiritual matters—that Catholics obeyed him in
ice,,,thal matters only, and that in civil matters their alle-
irZee to the Crown was completely undivided.—(Hear.) It
he said !laid the late Papal act was an innovation on the
rn_Mstitations of the country; but ho must remind the
1t044, that their greatest institutions were derived from
te4al Catholics themselves before the Reformation took
tei.s ant that they could have no desire to infringe in
l ,teast degree on those institutions. The Hon. Member
Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) said the recent act of the
eipti interfered with the Protestant institutions of the
lay, but he gave no proof in support of the asser-
and he (Mr. Scully) denied that it was the case. None
keZe.great statesmen of the present day, except those con-
with the Government, supported legislation on this
hztion, A Noble Earl (Aberdeen) in another place ob-
lived, with reference to this subject, that " conscience and
leVetl were beyond the sphere f legislation ;" and he also
them, that seeing the Catholic Church was tolerated
country, it followed that they sh _mid have liberty to
ktrY out the organization of their Church in a regular man-
le--(ltear, hear.) These sentiments were, he was happy to
Participated hi by nearly all the statesmen of the day
connected with Government. The House should not for-
that theytwere legislating for millions of Roman Catho-
et4l this country, and that by passing this measure they
(.1 cast an insult on those milli° is. They should also
theat, in mind the thousands of foreigners, mostly Roman CV
V; who would visit us during the present year, and conic'
cr what opinion they would form of the religious liberty of
(trlntry which could adopt such a course of legislation.—
leer, hear.) Millions of his fellow-countrymen in Ireland
lei; anxiously on this subject, and he begged the House se-
eittlY to consider the injurious effect which such a measure
;the present could not fail to have upon all the interests
uthatit country.—(llear, hear.)
tees:. 'RIME looked upon this discussion as one of the
lte ` unfortunate occurrences that had taken place during his
Parliamentary career. Jtie Bill proposed by the
' Go-
enent was the first step of retrogression, which would
Meted
the Irish people in a position by which they would be
to44,,tred a source of weakness instead of strength to the
d'!,trY• To see the House of Commons in this age occupied
lereticuseing such a measure was the most humiliating pic-
teLthat could be drawn. They were frightened with
4les, and were bringing forward acts of the mediaeval
oas if they were applicable.to the present time. It was
lelsf!echolv to see such a measure as this engaging the at-
ofGtiOnof Parliament to the total suspension of all public
kit4nesa. The promoters of the Bill were acting incon-
le, of
with the principle- on which the Anglican Church
tetli depended ; for it was a measure by which they sought
efee„Prive one-third of their fellow-countrymen of the tight
l'ar,Oate judgment. It was tyrannical, it was against the
te,""eetant principle, and agaiast that policy which this
4ZtrY had for the last thirty years been carrying out.
Was it not, above all, melancholy to think that the
ter, „'0 Lord, who had always been the advoca e of
kerus liberty, should be the man to change that
1417'1l which was going on so prosperously in Ireland, and
041,ch was placing Protestants and Catholics in that country
`ll, e best possible footing, and to introduce in its stead
ktoceogicat hatreds and religious strife? It was a grievous
hidt most unaccountable blunder. Within 24 hoers after
'4lLrlg the Noble Lard's letter to the Bishop of Durham he
titie. name), iu writing to a friend, stated that it was inapos-
kie it could express the genuine sentiments of Lord John
tit:e'en—that it was impossible one whose life had been
teeeed to the cause of promoting civil and religious liberty
tha d have become so changed and have so suddenly assumed
ItteaC-haricter of a persecutor, and that his belief was the
te;'r was the production of some impostor. If, how,ser,
tee 'oble Lord was the author of the letter, then he told his
aOYmati at the Noble Lord must have been seeking to find em-
th
ent for the ensuing session, and in that case the whole
talon would be lost, and the business of the nation utterly
wptQcted Five months had elapsed since he (Mr. Hume) thus
eipe to his friend, and he would ask the House whether the
thiiillon he at that period expressed had not proved true to
tenZ_ery letter. The Hon. Member for Birmingham had
tili;,811 of aggression—indeed, aggression, aggression," was
burden of his song7-but the Hon. Gentleman never
elle4l shat that aggression was; he denounced the Catholic
, e'gten. and therefore voted for the Biil in order to put down
4t religion. If liberty could not exist where the Catholic
et:gion existed, in what a situation was this country placed,
eci ere the Catholic population was increasing year after
Litt! The Hon. Member for Birmingham would permit
t,',"` (Mr. Hume) to say, that the liberties of England de-
o tided upon its public institutions, and not on the religious
anions of the people. What was meant by religious liberty ?
e understood it to mean, the power of enjoying perfect free-
'eta in one's religious belief, and of using all the forms that
e. re considered necessary to carry out that belief If so,
in in what did this alleged aggression consist? It had now
711 proved that the letter of Dr. Wiseman, which had given
that
offence, was published without his authority. If
,''t Were really the fact, did it not at once take away the
oele ground on which this charge of aggression was
inl.ed? For years past
.it had been allowed that vicars-
kleetolic sho dd exist in this country, and they were bound
their
the orders of the Pope in everything connected with
b:tr faith. The Catholics of this country petitioned to have
appointed, and in 1848 bishops accordingly took the
Ale of vicars-apostolic, by which their hierarchy was corn-
°tte_sit and the full religious liberty of the Roman Catholics
441isbed. What aggression, what insult was committed
t atnat proceeding? In what manner could it be injurious
ka'his country? Why, by Act of Parliament they had again
tlen. again admitted the existence of bishops in Ireland. He
Iv tett, therefore, that any aggression had been committed.
01,,al it worthy of the House of Commons, at this day, con-
tl''ering what was allowed to be done in our colonies, to be
ele!aged in passing a measure which it was never intended
ule be carried into effect? It might be fit play for chil-
lir'e, but it was really below the dignity of grown-up men to
Bet,occupied. It was pandering to the worst passions of men.
64 it, if the people of England were to be satisfied by having
eeeatt a measure passee, why not confine it to England ? Why
reilrflild it to Ireland or to Scotland ? They were told that the
ei, en had been insulted in having her supremacy invaded ;
t't although that supremacy existed in England, his coup-
elell did not admit its existence in Scotland. It was not
ititted either by the Episcopal or the Presbyterian Church.
reea.pPeared, therefore, to him that there was neither justice,
nnor principle connected with the Bill; but that it was
altogethereiak an act of oppression towards those who had
eelgerto been free. I.le could not support it, because, in his
bre'llien, it was a Bill of pains and penalties, and was the
elgtrining of a system which would not be confined to the
oreji
te 9 Catholics alone, but would by- and- by be extended to
the Dissenters, of every denomination. He regretted to see
ssepters, who had been allowed to enjoy their civil
'OO "s! joining
in
the crusade against the Roman Catholics,
(Cheers. ) The Dissenters
h,g to put them down.—(Cheers. . • •
pe'Z',",g achieved their own liberty, were found assisting to
that trammels upon the Roman C'atholics. He believed
I ~.‘ forty-nine petitions were presented from the Wes-
-4411,11 that night against the Papal aggression. He did
allow from what party in the Wesleyan connexion,
for,ether from the new or the old ; but he hoped the ion
party would outnumber the other, for the Conference
atikled to keep the people in ignorance and to become them-
selves the Pope.— (Hear, hear.) They wished to have the
of the Pope, and to -refuse their congregations any
rigor power whatever, for the right of private judgment
Do°, denied by the Conference, as it was by the Pope. He
le` quarrel with one more than the other, butt he did not like
4 ):!: the Wesleans calling for measures o rpression against
ee,"''y of their fellow-Dissenters. If this Bill passed, and
Neere Put into operetion, how would they govern Ireland ?
etl'uld the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Hatchell) get
eaed tell the House?—!Loud and prolonged and ironical
eerk
g from the Irish Members.) The House had heard
'LOW Oftho law ogoen of grislad. And they bled
_a

agreed with his Hon. and Learned Friend that, if the Noble
Lord were sincere in the view he had taken of the Papal ag-
gression, he ought to have come forward with a Bill denoun-
cing it in explicit terms as a thing opposed to the soverei cnt.y
of the Queen, and to have introduced a clause prohibiting
all persons from acting under the Papal brief, or under any
similar document, under a penalty. This. he conceived —if
there was to be any correspondence between the language of
the Noble Lord and his acts—between his promises and his
performances—was the sort of measure which the Noble Lord
should have proposed. He ventured to think that the public
would be satisfied with nothing else. (Cheers.) He was
perfectly satisfied that if they proceeded in a vacillating,
hesitating, and temporizing course they would entirely fail ;
that if they touched " the nettle danger" timidly, they would
only be stung the more; but that if they grasped it boldly
it would be perfectly harmles.—(Cheere.) He felt that thie
way, the first of aeries of formidable encroachments. He
believed that if they did not take their stand in every
breach they would entail a fearful struggle upon their pos-
terity. He was too sensible of the advantages which we
had derived from the light and liberty of the Reformation
which had been won for them by the labour, the danger, and
the blood of their ancestors, tto endeavour, as far as ho
could, to transmit them unimpaired tb the latest genera-
tion. (Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM. explained that on comparing the report
of the Duke of Wellington's speech of 1829, which he had
quoted from Hansard the other evening, with the report in
the Mirror of Parliament, he found that the date of 1792,
therein referred to, was a misprint for 1782, and that the
Duke's words were, according to the Mirror of Parliament,
that an Act having been passed in 1793, which was under-
stood to repeal the Act of 1782, the consequence had been
that the practice of assuming titles had greatly increased.
The Right Hon. Baronet added, that the Act of 1782 was
intended for the relief generally of the Roman Catholics,
but a proviso was added to the eighth clause
(which he read) to the effect that the benefits of it would
not be extended to any Popish ecclesiastic who should as-
anme any ecclesiastical rank or title whatever.
Mr. GLADSTONE said be had listened, as indeed he was
satisfied the House had listened, with that admiratio i which
he had never failed to experience to the speech of his Hon.
and Learned Friend. The views of his Hon. and Learned
Friend were, however, unmistakeable. They should feel
obliged for their disclosure, but he thought it was well that
the House, which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. bad in-
vited to enter on a new path, which no man among them
might see the end of, should at least consider tie' direction
in which it tended. The course which the Noble and
Learned Gentleman too plainly indicated, was a destmction of
the principles of religious freedom in their application to
Roman Catholic subjects. His Hon. and Learned Friend had
distinctly adverted to the necessity of introducing clauses
into the Bill for preventing synodal action ; but be believed
that no gentleman would stand up in that House and say
that voting for such a clause he was a friend fog religious
freedom to the Roman Catholics. His own plea fcr address-
ing the House at that period of the debate was, that
he was the only Member representing:an English eniversity,
and a large portion of the highest clergy, who Lad not yet
spoken, and he had the misfortune to stand in beposition to
the sentiments and judgment of all his colleagues.—(Hear,
hear.) He should pass by many matters alluded to in the
debate, and come at once to the consideration of that which
struck him as being most important and forcible. He did
not pretend to make light of the dangers to whichthe Church
of England was exposed. He differed from the;ion. Mem-
ber who expressed an apprehension, in which he(Mr. Glad-
stone) by no means shared, for the freedom of fie Queen.—
(Hear.) Now be had 'no apprehension for the freedom of
the Queen. Looking at their respective instittstions, and at-
taching full importance to the blessings of free education,
he believed that the constitution of England was strong
enough to resist any aggression which might be perpetrated,
or meditated, or intended by any power, teirlporal or spi-
ritual. He entered his protest against all attempts to meet
spiritual dangers of the Church by temporal legislation.
The principle they had now to deal with was plain.—(Hear.)
If the Roman Church by its authorities, whether the Pope,
the cardinals, the bishops, or anybody else,, continued such
an interference with temporal- affairs as would not be per-
mitted in the case of another religious body, then he said
they were not only entitled, but they were bound to inter-
fere. (Hear.) But until the exercise of that interference
until they overstepped that line which was drown, not for
'them only, but for all men, between matters spiritual and
temporal—until that was.done, they had no 'right to inter-
fere. They had no right to deny to them that which they
gave to any other body.—(Hear, hear.) He. would briefly
advert to that which had been well said the other night
by his Right Honourable Friend the Member for Ripon
in regard to the language used both in the, brief of
respecthatto tlhahesgeuaegcecleshiaasdticahl appotoohilnytmehnetesh, Hime
pceorntifnesesnetd,
the Pope, and in the letter of Cardinal ,AV,iseman, with
but of a vaunting and a boastful character.-(Cheers.) He
would not say that it 'had been adopted with' any intention
of wounding the feelings of the people of England, but it
was certainly language of which complaint might most
justly be made, and couched too, in strong terms.—(lronical
cheers, and counter cheering.) It was not enough that the
language of those documents should be offensive to justify
their interference; but the act itself should warrant it, and
therefore the question of the wisdom of thistlegislation must
stand or fall by the substance of the act itself. He did not
stop to inquire whether the Pope had done all that might
have been expected from him. In point of principle, and in
point of prudence he could conceive that there were other
steps that it would have been wise for hint to have taken.
He did not consider, either, whether there had been a breach
of the law of nations; but if that law had been broken, in his
opinion nothing could be more disparaging than for the Go-
vernment to propose, and for that House to entertain a mea-
sure proceeding in respect of that breach of the law of nations
by imposing penalties. And that letter to the Bishop of Dur-
ham was a letter, certainly, which the Noble Lord never
would have demeaned himself to write.—(Cheers and inter-
ruption.) Perhaps he was in fault. He did not mean to say
that the Sable Lord had done himself any dishonour by that
letter— (Ironical cheers)—but that he would have demeaned
himself if, when he wrote it, if he thought there had been a
breach of the law of nations. Cheers.) It was certainly a
matter of regret that the Noble Lord should have made his
complaint, not in the regular way, but by a letter to the
Bishop of Durham.—(Cheers and laughter.) Admitting
that in the abstract there might be a wrong, which he could
not exactly define, he must say that no ground whatever had
been made out by Government to prove that our Crown had
been wronged, and that the independence of the nation hail
been violated. What he contended for was, that they should
have preceded by diplomatic agency.—( Hear, hear.) But
what was the answer of the Government to that? Only this,
that a clause was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations
with Rome Bill, which prevented the Pope from sending his
agent to this country. But was that a reason why they
should not send an envoy to the Pope, to complain that
he had invaded our national independence, and insulted
the powers of the Crown 2—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
For was there a man who would say that the Pope
would have been bold enough to turn back an envoy
bringing a well-founded complaint of that nature?
That, however, was a matter affecting the conduct of the
Government. They had now this Bill before them, and the
question was, what had they to do with it? And however
wrong, or however right, the Government might be, they
must now make up their minds to the question whether this
Bill should or should not be read a second time.—(d
hear.) His Learned Friend who had just sat down was
eager in denouncing the act of the Pope, and in calling for
redress ; but he had not heard a man who had shown by
reasoning that this was a Bill adequate, to the purposes in
view.— (Cheers.) No cne had abused the measure more
than they who had made the most ingenious speeches in its
favour. For example, what did the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Attorney-General say? That we had a law to prevent
the introduction of bulls, in which respect an act of illegality
had been committed by the Pope's agents; but that there
was no law to prevent the parcelling out of the kingdom
into dioceses, and as a twitter of course, the assumption of
territorial titles from those dioceses. Therefore an act of ille-
gality had been committed, in respect of which no step was
taken, and another act which'wds not illegal, but was inno-
cent, they proposed to legislate for by a penal Bill. Thus they
left the illegal act unscathed, while the legal act of the.
creation of dioceses, and the usurpation of titles, they were
going to make illegal by an ex post facto law.— (Cheers.)
How much has been said about Ireland, but poor Scotland
had scarcely been mentioned. (Hear, hear.) -And there
was not time to go properly into the question of Scotland as
affected by the provisions of this dill. But when they
reached the Committee, es, hich he was bold enough to think
they Might still be able to reach (Cheers and laughter)—
perhaps the subject of Scotland might come under discussion,
and assuredly it would be a subject well worthy of conside-
ration.—(Rear.). Thee of
expressed their convic-
tion to be, that, in spite of all difficulties, it was theirabso-
lute duty to adopt a system of e
it
qual legislation with regard
to England and Ireland, because the great constitutional
doctrine on which they raised their trivial and petty super-
structure, was susceptible of equal application to the two
people. Well, what said the Attorney-General? He (Mr.
Gladstone) presumed that, in giving his opinion on the sub-
ject, he meant precisely what he said. But this was the
doctrine in his mind —considering that this was in the main
an extension to England of that section of the Catholic
Emancipation Act, now only practically operative in Ireland.
He said it was true, that in Ireland that section had not been
called into activity, but that in England the case would be
different. It was intended to put that machinery into opera-
tion, he said, and, in fact, that that should be tolerated in Ire-
land which was not endured ,in England. He might state
the views that were expressed in introducing this law; but
if that law was to be a dead letter in Ireland, while in
penal En-
gland it was to be a living principle, and a source of
proceedings, what DOW' became of their flourishes about the
and the equality of law in one
scuopurnetmryacayndoifnt
thhee oQthneeerli?'-- (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and
cheers.) But what was the Bill supposed to be, and what
was it in itself ? Could any one say what its precise effect
would be? One principal object of the Bill was supposed to
be the prevention of synodal action. He understood the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney -G
He un-
in the
eneral
to say that it would not prevent synodal action.
derstood the Solicitor-General as distinctly to say,
last passage of his speech, that the Bill with its one clause
would prevent synodal action.—(Cheers and laughter.)
But he would pass that by.—(Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that he said that
Roman Catholics themselves put it upon the ground that
without territorial title there could be no synodal action.
The Bill took away tal title, and uon the showin of
the Roman Catholicserritori themselves synodalp action fell tog the
ground. ,
and Learned Gentleman's speech, to show the stringency of
the Bill, in support of which view he was obliged to take ad-
vantage Mr. GLADSTONE—That was the climax of the Hon,
themselves. But what was the effect of the
had they he
hadsay from the lawyers?
Y the Catholics
econ d a
no
df tthheirdstactleauosfetsh?ing so
nr etphr
aestepnotiendt
tblose
had had the
sion of the
assistance of many lawyers there. They were unfortunately
?—(Cheers, and
laulaymen.ghter ) " Unfortunately,lvhaassistancet
The Attorney-General said that when the second and third
clauses had been expunged, the first clause would have the
same effect. An Hon. and Learned Member, on the other
hand, had produced the opinions of the most distinguished
lawyers, that the second and third clauses would stand in
the way of the first.—(Cheers, and laughter.) That was
pretty well in the way of contradiction ; but it mended the
matter much when his Hon. and Learned Friend, who had
just sat down, came in with an authority and told them, as
distinctly, that neither the one was right or the other ; but
the second clause would be involved in the first, and that the
third clause would not.—(llear.) But this was a Bill in-
tended to maintain the rights of the Queen and the inde-
pendence of the nation. Why was it to maintain the rights
of the Queen's Crown? Who had offended them? A foreign
dealing with the
fpoorweiegrn.
power?
?whiairthwyastotliiienirposmeodoeertoafin
penalties on her
Majesty's subjects. Did that Bill as it stood give them any
coherent idea of, or refer them to any principle? He would
have yielded it a comparative approbation if it had rererred
even to a false principle. But there was none such. It was a
Bill to repress foreign autherity:; then why did it not confine
itself to Protestant foreign titles l—(llear ) Why were
certain domestic titles repressed by that Bill ? --(Hear.)
That was not so remote a case. In the last session of Par-
liament, or the last but one, a petition was presented to the
House of Lords by Lord Brougham, and was supported by
many Peers, in which many gentlemen denominated Eng-
lish Episcopalians residing in Scotland, prayed the Souse of
Lords tv givs them epixopal goverumeut. Such a Bill, bad

end made them speak modern language—(Hear) —and
that the Noble Lo-d would have considered those law; were
not precisely, obsolete, and might have been applied to this
aggression. But wh •=t had the Noble Lord done? He had
left the law in precise'y the same unsets led and unsatisfac-
tory state.--(Hear.) Were those Acts to be applicable to
any future aggression, or were they to be considered obsolete ?
The Noble Lord had really done more injury to the law as it
existed in the statute-book, and also to the common law, by
the mode in which he had dealt with this subject, than by
any other course that could possibly be conceived.—(Hear,
he-ar.) The Nsble Lord then considered it was not proper to
carry out those laws against this aggression. Now, let the
House see what was the nature of that aggression, and hav-
ing ascertained that, let them see what was the measures of
the Noble Lord to protect us from that aggression, and to
satisfy the wishes and desires of the people.—(Hear, hear. )
Every one who had spoken on the Proteand imp er
stant siious tone de of the
question had admitted the haug
the Papal bull. It had been proved, he thought, most y of
sa-
tisfactorily, that the Papal power being a compound of tem-
poral and spiritual authority, so closely connected and inti-
mately blended, that it was almost impossible to detach and
separate the one from the other—whether this was to be
regarded as a spiritual or a temporal act, or an ecclesiastical
act, which was an act of a mixed nature, there could be
no doubt that the tone indicated at least the intention to
extend sovereign power and authority over the kingdom of
England; and that very expression, " kingdom bf England,"
appeared to him to be very significant as regarded this Papal
aggression. An observation was made, he believed by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury, that throughout
this brief the Pope condescended only to speak of the
kingdom of England, and when he spoke of the Church in
England he spoke of the Church of England. Now as to
the title of" the kingdom of England," was it used by mis-
take or design ? They could hardly think it was by mistake,
because the Pope and his advisers c add not be ignorant
that in the year 1703 the kingdom of England ceased to
exist as a separate kingdom—that it was united with Scot-
land, and became the kingdom of Great Britain. Then was
it by design?' He could not help thinking so, inasmuch as
in one of the shameful periods of our history the kingdom of
England became a feudal dependency of the Pope, and he be-
lieved it was an inflexible rule of the Papal see, that what-
ever was once annexed to the patrimony of St. Peter could
never be separated from it.—( Hear, hear.) He was dis-
posed, therefore, to think that the Pope had used that style
and title to designate the kingdom to which his Papal bull
applied, and it was, in his (Sir F. Thesiger's) mind signifi-
cant of the purpose. But then it was said by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Plymouth in his admirable speech, that
this proceeding on the part of the Pope was only
the natural-ecclesiastical development of the Roman Catholic
Church, and his Hon. and Learned Friend said, that inas-
much as we had once tolerated that Church, we should be
inconsistent with ourselves unless we allowed that Church to
expand, and grow, and develop itself to its fullest complete-
ness and extent. Now, what was the natural development
of the Roman Catholic Church ? Nothing short of universal
dominion.—( Hear, hear.) And, lest it should be supposed
that Protestants were excluded from that universal rule
which the Roman Catholic Church arrogated for itself, he had
found very recently a passage he would read to the House
from a book which was a divinity class book at the College
of Maynooth in the present day, and in which that princi-
ple was stated in the fullest manner :
" Ecclesia cram rennet jurisdictionem in ones apostatos,
hereticos, et schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jam
pertineant."
That was merely as to schismatics, heretics, and apostates.
But there was another passage:
" Societas Protestantium sese a schismatic reatu excusare
non potest."
It was perfectly evident, therefore, from comparing the two
passages, that universal rule being claimed over all schis-
matics, and Protestants being included in that category, the
rule applied to them. See, then, the condition in which we
should be if the argument of his Honourable and Learned
Friend were correct.—( Hear, hear.) We could not ad-
mit the principle of toleration in the smallest degree with-
out admitting the right of the Roman Catholic Church
to expand itself to the fullest extent of that claimed
authority; and unless we could say to the Roman Catho-
lics, " We will admit toleration to a certain extent ; we
will grant all that is necessary for the exercise of your reli-
gion ; so far shalt thou go and no further, and here shall thy
proud waves be stayed"—unless we could say that, we must
be open to all the terrible consequences that might ensue.—
(Hear. hear.) Well, then, what was the result he should
draw from his Honourableand Learned Friend's argument?
He was afraid it was one which be hoped they never would
come to, that the tolerati An of the Roman Catholic religion
was entirely out of the question.—(Hear, hear.) Then it
was said, why was there all this fuss ?—it was the most
harmless change that could possibly be imagined—it
was a mere change of vicarssapostolic to a hierarchy of
bishops. If the change was so harmless what meant the
note of triumph raised by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral?
What meant the fervid glow of figurative language with
which he described that change? He said
" Your beloved country has received a place among the
fair Churches which, normally constituted, form the splendid
aggregate of the Catholic communion. Catholic England
has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament,
from which its light had long -vanished, and begins now
anew its course of regularly. adjusted action round the
centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of
vigour."
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, he would rather take the
view of the Cardinal upon this point, and, to his mind,
those were words of ominous import. (Hear, hear.) Then,
it' was said they ought not to be dismayed on this occasion,
because the Pope had given up a portion of the authority he
previously possessed; that vicars-apostolic were creatures of
his will, and that, when he had established his hierarchy,
they would be entirely independent of him. If the Pope
had given up any portion of his power, it was a little con-
trary to the usual action of the Papal" see— (Hear, hear)—
and he should rather think it right on that principle to use
the phrase of our neighbours—" reculer pour mieux snider.
But this hierarchy was to be the means of introducing. not
the canon law as it bad been recognised by our common law
for a long series of years, but the canon law of the Church
the vital principle of which was, as he believed, an
ultimate appeal to the Pope.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Again, they would have bishops dependent on the
Propaganda at Rome. He could not help thinking, there-
fore, that there was a mere semblance of resignation of any
portion of the Papal power by the Pope, and that after this
hierarchy should be established, as he trusted it never would
be—(Hear, hear) —the Pope would be more powerful than
ever. (Hear, hear.) But suppose the Pope should have
given up a portion of his power, what consolation was that
to us? We were just in the same situation, and had still to
guard against encroachment, whether it was the encroach-
ment of the Pope, or of the Church of which he was the
head. - (Hear, hear.) That being the condition in which we
stood, what was it that the Noble Lord proposed
as an important measure to avert all those con-
sequences? The Noble Lord, as it appeared to
him, had given the charac'er of h's own Bill. The
Noble Lord said, in the year 1848, that "as to pr,venting
persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more ab-
surd and puerile than to keep up such distinctions." Well,
he turned to the Noble Lord's Bill, and he found that it
'reposed to prevent the assumption of particular ecclesias-
tical titles, so that, to adopt the Noble Lord's
own expression, he had given to the desires of the
GentlemaneggedthtehoHmouesme
public, a Bill which was absurd and puerile."—(Hear.)
hebconsiderfor Riponthhaatd if,
lion.Nolda s the
them,bther Rightthe
Duke of Wellington in 1829 considered the 24th section of
the 10th of George IV. as no security whatever—if this was
the case at a time when all the Acts of Parliament for the
protection of Protestantism were in full vigour, and were
armed with all the penalties, how could we expect, now that
all those Acts were ceprived of their force, that any such
Act as the present could be of the smallest use? The Noble
Lord must be perfectly aware that it would be perfectly fu-
tile for preventin. the Acts which it proposed to provide
against lie had heard that the late Mr. O'Connell was in
the habit of saying that he could drive a coach and six
through most modern Acts of Parliament. lie (Sir F.
Thesiger) was perfectly satisfied that a cardinal's state car-
riage, he was going to say, could be driven through this
Bill, but the fact was, it was too small to render that pos-
sible, though he was quite sure it could easily be driven
over it. ( Hear, hear, and: a laugh.) Because, what
did the Noble Lord propose? He proposed to prevent
the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Now ha would just
put this case. Suppose Dr. Cullen addressed Dr. Wiseman
and called him " Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster," but
took care to sign himself 'Paul Cullen," and suppose. Dr.
Wiseman returned an answer, and addressed Dr. Cullen as
"Archbishop of Armagh," but took care to sign himself
" Nicholas vs iseman," t .is would be no infringement of the
law, because, in this transaction, there would be no assump-
tion of titles on the part of either party. The Bill of the
Noble Lord was, therefore, so weak and so flimsy that it re •
quired only the feeblest casuistry to break through it.—
(Cheers.) His Hon. and Learned Friends the Attorney and
Solicitor General had both stated that the Bill would prevent
synodical action, and, of course, they would tot have
brought in a Bill to do so if they had not had that intention.
Now he had torus doubt whether the first clause would
have that effect. He would bring the Government, th-re-
fore, to this test :—To prevent any doubt on the point
would the Gevernuient introduce. a clause specifically pre-
venting synodical action ?—(Cheers.) And here he came
again to the extraordinary course which was pursued by the
Goverdment with respect to this Bill. The House must as-
sume that it was only after the most careful and guarded de-
liberation that the clauses were framed which were intended
to have so extensive an operation ' • and yet the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department
had been compelled to say that not only did the Bill not ex-
press in terms what the Government meant, but that it
actually expressed what they had never meant—(Hear,
hear) - for the Right Hon. Gentleman said they had disco-
vered that if the second section of the Bill was allowed to
continue they would operate to prevent measures of ordina-
tion and other documents of that description from having
legal validity, the consequences of which would be very
serious ; and also, that if the third section was retained
it would prevent bequests and endowments being left
to Roman Catholic archbishops and, bishops. Now, he
(Sir Frederick Thesiger) was disposed to think that
the legal opinion which had been read to the House by the
Hon. Member for Dundalk, to the effect that the
opera-
tion of the second clause was involved in the first—because,
inasmuch as the first clause prohibited the assumption of
titles, and made the assumption of them subject to a penalty
—that, as a penalty always implied a prohibition, and a pro-
hibited act was always void in law, therefore any act done
by Roman Catholic bishops under a prohibited title would
be an act utterly and entirely void.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard to the third section, he was disposed to think that
under the Bequests Act there might be this distinction—that
supposing a bequest made to trustees and their successors in
such terms that there would be a sufficient designation of
persons independently of the prohibited titles, the bequest
would be considered good in spite of the prohibited titles.—
( fleas, hear.) But, however this might be, he felt certain
that the Noble Lord, with respect to the effect of the second
clause being involved in the first, was placed in this extraor-
dinary dilemma, that he must ei her vote against the third
reading of his own Bill, or allow the Bill to be passed which
contained provisions which he did not intend. Now he did
not see how it was possible for the Noble Lord to escape from
this dilemma. 'Yes, there was one way. The Noble Lord
might introduce into the first clause an exception with re-
the assumptiou of titles in all cases in which there
pea to any authority,
was the legal exercise of
which would be, that the exception would be so enormously
large as to swallow up the entire Bill, because the clause
would then only apply to the innocent assumption of titles
by Roman Catholics when they went into society and were
announced by their titles.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Seeing, then, that he considered tur he Bill utterly futile, what
was the course he intended to psue? He anticipated that
his statement would be received with a laugh of ridicule
when he said that he meant to vote for the
thought the t second real diegisng.la-
-
(Laughter.) And why se he
tion was absolutely necessary, and because, bad as it was,
he preferred the 'minimum of legislation proposed by the
Noble Lord to having no legislation at all.—(Hear, hear.)
Bat he meant to vote for the second reading for a still
more important object—because it afforded an opportunity
t) these who thought, like him, that the Bill was not
what it ought to be, to endeavour to amend it in Committee.
(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend the Mem-
ber for Midhurat (Mr. Walpole) had slightly sketched out
Ilia notion of what the Dill 01114 to We been; and he

it been introduced, would have been rendered nugatory by
that of the Noble Lord. The Legislature exempted the
Scottish Episcopalians from this restraint, and now the Noble
Lord was practically imposing it. He could not accept the
exemption with gratitude. He was acquainted with many
excellent Scotch Episcopalians, but he had no desire that
en exemption by civil privileges an. toleration should be
created for one class of men from which others precisely in
the same circumstances were to he excluded.—(Cheers.) But
did that Bill prohibit territorial titles? They prohibited epis-
copal titles, but not territorial titles. There were others
who divided the country into districts besides Episcopalians,
and Wesleyans divided it into circuits.—(Cheers and cries of•
"Oh, oh 1") He knew the meaning of that cry, and would
deal with it in its proper place. Only one thing at a time.—
(Hear, hear.) He was saying that they did not prevent ter-
ritorial titles, because not only were the Wesleyans, but be-
cause in England and Ireland there were bodies called
Presbyters and Synods, having just as much territorial
titles as these bishops of the Pope. —(" No, no," and cheers.)
There were in Scotland persons professing the same religion
as the people of England, and in England persons professing
the Presbyterian religion of Scotland. They divided the
country into districts, assigning, in the first instance, epis-
copal 'Wes to bishoprics, as, for exatnpls, the Bishop of
Glasgow, while in England there was the Presbytery of
London, strictly as binding as any in Scotland. 'lf they
made the distinction because in many countries in Europe
bishoprics were connected with the temporal interests, the
Presbytery was, on the same ground, open to the same ob-
jection. He took the Bill according to its professions. Its
proposed object was to prevent Romish aggression. The
Secretary for Foreign Affairs regards it as an extension of
the Act of 1829. He protested against such a desecration of
it. The clause of the Act of 1829 went to defend them
against the usurpation of the ultra existing sees, well known
in the House, and carrying with them many most important
incidents.—(Hear, hear.) The person who should assume
the title of the Bishop of London would be a pretender to a
title endowed with great advantages and temporal rights.
The question now arose whether they would allow a title to
be assumed, which interfered with no one and invaded no
rights, and represent it as an extension of the Act of 1829.
It was for them to prove that the rescript of the Pope was
of the temporal character they described it to be, but he
had heard nothing which proved that to be the cast. Of the
parties who defended this Bill, or rather the opinion that
there ought to be legislation on the subject—some said the
Bill went too far, while others said it did not go far enough.
These parties were involved in an inconsistency in defend-
ing this position, when they described what took place in
foreign countries, where they said that the people were re-
duced to the lowest stage of degradation from the influence
of the Roman Catholic religion, and at the same time
alleged that they had no intention to prevent the fair
progress of that religion. The argument went too far.
If they had to contend with a spiritual system, they must
melt the strength of a spiritual system with the strength of
another spiritual system, and not by a penal enactment.—
(Hear, hear.) It was argued by the Noble Lord the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, that there was in this case the distinc-
tion that these titles were conferred by a foreign power.
Well, he would inquire how far would this carry them ?
When they had persons, subjects of this country, who ac-
knowledged this spiritual authority, how were they to in-
terfere with them? He would not deny that there might
be temporal matters under the guise of spiritual affairs, but
they could not say because they were derived from foreign
authority that they ought to be deprived of them. They
should show that they were not spiritual matters, but
temporal, under the pretence of being spiritual: When
they had arrived at that conclusion, then there would arise
a reason for their interference. No one had as yet said
that the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics should be
restricted. The Attorney-General distinctly maintained
that they were entitled to equal freedom. Then he asked
the question whether this act was spiritual or temporal ?
Religious liberty required that Parliament should not step
within the sphere of religion? He did not mean to say
that it had not a right to interfere in the affairs of the Es-
tablished Church, which derived advantages and privileges
from the State; but the right was so limited with regard to
religious bodies unendowed and unconnected with the State.
What, he would ask, was the amount of the proof adduced
that the rescript of the Pope was of a temporal character?
The only case you test was that set forth by the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, who stated that the appoint-
ment of bishops was not a spiritual but a temporal act.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had said that was the
opinion of Mr. Twigs.
Mr. GLADSTONE, in continuation, said he should like to
know if the Noble Lord adopted that opinion.—(Laughter.)
If the appointment. then of bishops was a spiritual act, they
had no right to interfere. If it was a temporal act, why did
they exempt the bishops of the English Church in Scot-
land, rand not place the nomination of those bishops
in the Crown. He wished to see how the Government
could extricate themselves from that dilemma. He called
upon them either to strike out that exemption, or to place
the nomination in the hands of the Crown. The Attorney-
General spoke of excommunications, and the deprivation of
benefices. If parties in these matters went beyond the
sphere of spiritual matters, they would have a right to deal
with it. He would ask, however, were the Roman Catholics
the only parties who used excommuications ? They were
common in other religious communities. They were re-
sorted to by the Dissenting bodies, and were used by the
Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and in the Free Church.
What-he wanted was not proofs of insulting language hav-
ing been used, or that the Roman Catholic religion was
exclusive, but what he wanted was proof of the temporal
character of the rescript, and if that could not be furnished,
there was not a shadow of season for the principle laid
down for this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Then there was the
canon law of which so much had been said. He would
take the canon law of Boniface the Eighth and Honorius
the Ninth., The Attorney-General disclaimed the opinion
that this Bill would exclude synodal action. He would call
upon Hon. Gentleman who were prepared to vote in favour
of this Bill because it would prevent syncdal action, to re-
collect when they went home that this Bill would not ex-
clude the canon law. However this law might increase the
power of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, that
was their affair - (Hear, hear)—and there would be no reli-
gious freedom if Parliament undertook to interfere, and re-
gulate the internal disputes of religious bodies. Religious
freedom consisted in the right of parties to frame a system
for themselves, from Mormonism upwards ; and if, when
parties in these bodies found themselves rubbed and fretted,
they were to come to Parliament to set them right, their re-
ligious freedom would be endangered.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear ") The Roman Catholics were free men, and would act
for themselves.—( Hen -.):They did not want your protection.
They repudiated it. What they wanted was, that you should
let them alone.—(Cleers from the Irish Members.) He
might ask, what had the Roman Catholics now? They had
that which was considered the very worst part of this canon
law. That which gives too much power to the Pope, and
does not infuse enough of the constitutional principle into the
Church. The system was susceptible of the constitutional
principle. In a hierarchy bishops had privileges as against
the authority of the Pope. The Pope would not deprive a
diocesan bishop without that, and an incumbent was in the
same position with regard t r his bishop; whereas at present
the Pope was, with regard to the Catholics of this country,
complete master without any limit.—(Hear, hear.) Every
man was now subject to his arbitrary authority and unli-
mited power, presenting a power as completely arbitrary
as could exist.—(Hear, hear.) He could remove a bishop
or priest at his will. This arbitrary power could
not be better expressed than in the words of the
Canon of Boniface VIII. and Honorius IX., which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman referred to, and which declared—
" That it is necessary for salvation to believe that
everybody is bound to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Wherever bishops were introduced, it must tend alike to
equal rights and to equal organisation, and give a certain
degree of freedom even as against the Pope.—(Hear.) He
confessed it wounded him, as a member of the Church of
England, to see this hierarchy spreading over the country,
but that was a totally different matter from invoking the
secular arm --(Hear.) He might be wrong, but he supposed
that if proper investigation were made, it would be found
that the law was, hat all ecclesiastical jurisdiction should
be vested in the Crown. If that were so, no exception could
be made in favour of particular sects. The Toleration Act
might be an exception, but he apprehended that that would
authorise the exercise of no such power, for instance, as
that used by the Wesleyan Conference, when they deter-
mined upon the expulsion of Mr. Dunn and Mr. Griffiths.
In 1725 Bishop Gibson wrote a letter to the Duke of New-
castle, then Secretary of State, representing that certain
ministers of Massachuselts had intimated to the Governor
of that colony their intention to meet in synod. The
Duke of Newcastle referred the letter to Lord Hard-
wick, who was Attorney-General. The law officers
of the Crown gave it as their opinion that her
Majesty's supremacy extended to the colcnies, and that it
was not lawful f r the clergy to meet without the Royal
licence. That showed that this power to prevent the meet-
ing of synods extended to all sects, and even to the colonies,
and these law officers, to avoid even the appearance of ad-
mitting the legality of the proposed synod, suggested that,
if the ministers assembled, they should be dispersed by force.
No Act of Parliament had been passed since to the present
day giving express legality to synods. If that were so, and
if this doctrine was now to be applied to the Roman Catho-
lies, it must be applied to all other bodies, and not to them.
alone. They must not have a partial and exceptional appli-
cation. He agreed with the N oble Lord that of late the ex-
treme party in the Church of Rome had gained the ascen-
dancy. The moderate party had been declining, lie agreed
with the Noble Lord upon these facts, and joined with him
in sentiments of deep regret at this state of things.
They thought that in opposing the introduction of a hierarchy
they were endeavouring to repress Ultramontane principles.
He would show them the very reverse was the fact. His
assertion was that since the Reformation there had been two
parties in the Roman Catholic Church, and their history was
very different. Since the time of Queen Elizabeth the bulk
of the clergy and laity had pursued one line of policy, and
the Jesuits and the Court of Rome another. The former
party, which might be called the moderate party, bad ever
been struggling for this measure of diocesan episcopacy. The
extreme party in the Church of Rome, who were represented
by the cardinals around the Pope and the Jesuits, had all
along been struggling to resist this measure, and now he
asked them to grapple with the fa-As he should
give them. He would show them that since the
time of Elizabeth the majority of the laity and clergy of the
church of Remelted been struggling, and often with the
countenance of the Government, to obtain diocesan episco-
pacy; and could anything be more gross than for the Go-
vernment now to interfere, and say we will introduce what
will prevent you, the moderate party in the Church of Rome,
from succeeding? Reference had been made to Mr. Palmer,
and that theologian had twitted the Catholic theologians in
the discussion, by telling them, " You are no Church at all,
because you have no diocesan bishops." When they wish
now to have bishops, and become a regularly constituted
Church, our own theologians and others seek to prevent it.
The Roman Catholic laity and clergy had all along been
struggling to obtain this measure with the sanction and
countenance of the British Government, who had throughout
opposed vicars apostolic, and encouraged the efforts to obtain
diocesan episcopacy. This could be proved upon the autho-
rity of Mr. Dodd, and the well-known Mr. Butler, and
the equally well-known Roman Catholic writer, Perrington.
Directly the penal laws were repealed, the question of
bishops was again sought to be raised, and efforts made to
conciliate the mind of the British Government. The great
mind of Pitt had a definite opinion upon this subject, and
they should not be ashamed of marching under his banner.
Ile was of an opposite opinion to the Noble Lord.—(Hear.)
When he looked back to the prophetic sayings of that great
man, he found in them lessons of wisdom, which would, if
considered, help them to solve many of the difficult questions
now pressing upon them. After referring to the opinions of
i
send Mr. Hussey as a deputation to Rome,thanedutoien
tlkhl ra.t Pi
ni t tionnotbiet
ws uabsj e cdte oe
deemed
et the Cd
vaitshaoblliec dbiyaa
thebili t i
Cates, sa,
sevour to
great objects Mr. Hussey had in view was tilaleolosictfastteoe
T hear)—
appointment on two grounds
elected by the clergy—Oscar,
that the Government ap-
proved of ,the change, and sesond. that the Legislature
pave the way for the appointinent of ops
—he endeavoured to facilitate the arrangement that vlears-
waTshaet Romesame
that diocesan bishops
should be appointed in their stead. It might be said that if
wouldtatpi
onsgtohappened
soonsh
oue qd u
wheni ee that
withdrawn,
tti
hr
de
Johnhr
aawn gn
Coxtaou be
the bishops were appointed by the clergy the case would be
greatly altered. He (Ur. Gladstone) would wish that; and
the appointment of diocesan bishops was a step to it, and to

a certain extent would detach them from Rome. They 1 The circumstances, Sir, in the present case were fresh and
found, therefore, that the history of the case was this, that fi grant. The law which could have dealt with it was not
the moderate party in the Church was always asking for : obsolete, but ancient.-(Hear, hear.) And it is treason
diocesan bishops, that the extreme party always supported ! against the liberties of England to contend that all ancient
the system of vicars-apostolic, and that the Government laws are obsolete, because our liberties depended upon such.
sided with the moderate party. It was his (Mr. Gladstone's -( Hear, hear, and cheers.) The second reason for my
opinion that the coarse Ministers were taking, so far from objection to this Bill is, that it attempts to legislate upon
stopping the course of affairs, was calculated to do the very phrases and not facts. It attempts to legislate upon tithes.
reverse-that it was throwing them back, and a move in the Now this is clear, that if you press the law, no person
direction of penal laws. It was both a persecution and a nul- who could be subjected to it will ever place himself
lity. If they wished to exercise a beneficial influence on the in a position as an offender under it. Yet he will not
Roman Catholics they must reverse their policy. They the less use the titles and those incidents which are copse-
must deal with them kindly. They had feelings and affec- quent upon his office. The whole thing is founded on a
tions they could turn to account, for they were distinguished fallacy. If you choose to legislate on titles, you should not
by their attachment to their country, and their attachment legislate against the assumption of titles by the bishops of
to the Crown.-(Hear, hear.) If they drove them back on the Roman Catholic Church, but against those titles of
the Pope, what could they expect but alienated feelings, and honour and dignity which have teen conferred upon them
the difficulties on the other side of the Channel would be by her Majesty's Ministers.-(Cheers.) What a mockery it
proportio lately increased. In that country their difficulties is when the Ministers are caressing and lauding these bishops,
had already commenced. When the colleges were opened to be proposing penal statutes, because these bishops, are
last year, they had a party in the Catholic Church in favour treated with respect and honour by one class of her Majesty's
of the colleges, and there was a division in that Church on subjects.-(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Baronet the
the question. But there was no division now.- (Hear, hear, Secretary for the Home Department had told them that these
and cheers.) The question with them now was, should bishops were so addressed by the Government on the ground
they go backwards or forwards?-(Hear, hear.) He con- of social courtesy. Nothing was more inane than to legis-
tended that there had been no temporal interference late against those titles assumed by the Roman Catholic
by the Pope in the late appointments, except such as were bishops, and not against those titles of honour conferred on
incidental to the office of bishop. Would they, then, go them by the Government.-(Cheers.) I repeat that the Bill
backwards, or forwards, in religious liberty? Did they think asserted no principle. That cannot be questioned. It would
so ill of their own religion as to fear the breath of free corn- be assuredly a principle if it laid this down, that no person
petition?-(Hear, hear.) It was useless to urge that the should accept place or dignity, employment or office,
present measure was but a trifling retrogression. Of course civil or ecclesiastical, from any foreign prince, except
it was but a trifling retrogression; but all retrogressions with the consent of her Majesty. That might be a
were so at first. But what security had they that other and national enactment and have taken the form of a statesman-
more formidable measures were not in the back ground-. like precaution, instead of the present measure which had
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear") -and that during the next only the appearance of a spiteful act of the Government of
half century the question of religious liberty would not again this country against Popery. It may be said that the con-
act upon Parliament, and be made the means of unseating sent of the Crown would be equivalent to a veto. That I
Ministers?-( Hear, hear.) Do not tell him that the cha- deny. I will not now stop to argue upon the propriety or
racter of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was a security, otherwise of the veto; but I deny that such a measure as I
He once thought it was-(Hear, hear) -but if they proehe- suggested would amount to a veto. The Roman Catholic
sied that the Noble Lord would not prohibit the action bishop, as a matter of course, receives his appointment upon
of synods, he feared they woul lbe in error. If in 1815 doing that which every gentleman elected in the constitu-
any one had told him that in the month of March, 1851, tional way to represent a constituency in this house is bound
the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill to prohibit ecelesias- to do-namely, to take the oaths that are proposed
tical titles on the part of Roman Catholic bishops, he to him upon his appointment to such an office.
(Mr. Gladstone) would not have believed it. I feel the utter impossibility at this hour of the night to
He never heard a more impresssive passage than one which enter fully into this discussion. I feel also that I have great
was delivered by the Noble Lord in his speech upon the difficulties to contend against in attempting to criticise the
second reading of the Bill for enlarging the endowment of measure before us. The relations that subsist between me
the college of Slaynooth, when the Noble Lord referred to and the Noble Lord are not those which are favourable to
some lines of Virgil- a candid criticism.- (Hear.) If the Noble Lord were my
" Scilicet et tempus veniet, cum finibus illis Noble Friend-( Loud cheers)-if there subsisted between us
Agricola, incurvo terrain molitus aratro, relations of friendship-even of affection-(Cheers and laugh-
Exesa iuveniet scabra rubigine pila ; ter)-I would avail myself of the proud privilege of such mu-
Aut gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit inanes, tual sensibility, and rest assured I would take care neither to
Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris." spare his policy or his feelings. - (Renewed laughter.) And
The Noble Lord said, that upon the scenes whei-e battles bad this reminds me that while attempting to prove that this mea-
been fought the hand of nature effaced the ruin which the sure is inefficient, although I shall vote for the second reading
hand of man had wrought; and the cultivator of the soil in of it upon the same grounds as were stated by my Hon and
aftertimes found the rusted arms, and looked upon them L 'arned Friend near me (Sir F. Thesiger), though not in
with joy as the memorials of forgotten strife, and as enhanc- any way pledging myself ultimately to support the Bill-
ing the blessings of his peaceful occupation ; but he added, though I think it will be evaded in England and inoperative
in reference to the powerful opposition to that measure, that in Ireland -yet that it had been supported and opposed by
it seemed that our strifes upon the question of religious free- authorities of the greatest importance and commented upon
dom never were at an end, and our arms never were to rust, in language of a most varied character. I heard it stated
-(Hear, hear.) Would any man who heard the Noble Lord by one party that this Bill would be opposed because it was
deliver those impressive sentences have believed, not only a reversial of our policy. Sir, I have heard these phrases
that strife in regard to the great question of religious liberty before.-(Cheers.) I remember, about two years ago,
was to be revived-revived, it was to be feared, with a great making a very moderate proposition to mitigate the burden
deal of acerbity-in this year 1851-(Hear, hear)-but that of taxation upon a suffering class of her Majesty's subjects,
he himself was to be a main agent in the revival-( Hear, and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.
hear) . that his was to be the head which was to wear the Graham) then my opponent, as he is now the opponent of
helmet, and his the hand which was to grasp the spear?- the Government, did oppose the proposition, because he said
(Hear, hear.) The principle of religious freedom-its adapta- it was the reversal of our policy.-(Hear, hear.) But on
tion to their modern state and to their ancient institutions, that occasiou the pretext appeared to be so monstrous that
was not adopted rashly. Were they going to spend the it was not swallowed by the Right Hon, Gentleman the
latter part of the century in undoing that which they had Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). But
already done? It must be recollected that Europe, and the on the present occasion," the reversal of our policy" is likely
civilized world, looked to England at the present moment. to bear some serious consequences. These consequences, we
They knew that nothing was so distasteful to England as are told by the Right Hon. the Member for Ripon, are to
obsolete theories, and that when she made a step forward, be inevitable and immediate if this Bill passes
she kept it-that she was not a republic to-day, and a mo- into a law-namely, a civil war in Ireland. Now I beard
narchy to-morrow. If the people of England, then, at- that announcement with some misapprehension, but with
tempted to turn back the principle of civil and religious more surprise.- (Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gen-
liberty it would recoil upon themselves.- (Hear, hear.) tleman reminded us of the state of Ireland in 1829, and he
The 'Noble Lord had appealed to those on his (Mr. Glad- said that we escaped civil war then by yielding to her de-
stone's) side of the House in the names of Hampden and mends, hut you will not escape it even if you persist in this
of Pym ; but he confessed he would rather have heard those measure. He made an analogy between the state of Ireland
names appealed to on any other subject-(Hear, hear)- in 1829 and 1851, and according to him that analogy was
because if there was one blot on their scutcheons, it was the complete. I ask him now whether that analogy was just,
odious intolerance which they practised against the Catholics. and whether it was complete and proved ? If so, what, then,
- (Hear, hear.) He would rather prefer appealing to those is the result of all those great measures we have parsed for
great men who were mentionel by Hallam, to whom they the amelioration of Ireland during the last twenty years ?•-•.,
owed the safety of this great monarchy, and whose disposi- (Hear, hear.) If the state of Ireland be in the same posi-
tion was to avert the severity of the laws and to attach to tion now as it was in 18`9. What, I say, was the use of
them their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Alluding giving complete political equality to the Roman Catholics in
to the party with which he was connected the Right Hon. Ireland; of reconstructing the Church Establishment there;
Gentleman said, there was no great band of union which of abolishing tithes, and of establishing the great system of
bound them together; but that they felt they should, one natjonal education founded by Lord Stanley?-(Hear,
day, have the forceof public opinion.-(Cheers and laughter.) hear.) What, I say then, was the use of granting them
He entreated the House to consider well the conclusion to municipal reform, by which the corporation was
which they were about to come on this important question, opened to all creeds, and upon the lowest franchise, not-
and trusted that their votes would be given in accordance withstanding the c pposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman
with the sacred principles of justice, and that while they himself?-(Cheers.) What was the use of the new colleges-
were sustained by a sense of justice, they would resolve to of giving to the Roman Catholics a university munificently
follow wherever it might lead. The Right Hon. Gentleman endowed ? What was the use of your doing for Ireland that
resumed his seat amid loud cheering, which continued for which you had not done for England, namely, of having
several minutes. revised and increased the franchise in Ireland; if it be true
Mr. DISRAELI-Sir, I think I gave testimony last night, that Ireland in 1851 is in the
.same state it was in 1829,
namely, on the verge of rebellion ?-(Cheers.) Sir, I have
by voting against the adjournment of the debate, that I did too much faith not only in the loyalty, but the common sense
not wish to intrude on the House in this debate. I hope, of the Irish people, to believe that this is the case.- (Hear.)
however, that as few of those with whom I usually act have If that were true which had fallen from the lips of the Right
addressed the House on this subject, trusting perhaps to my Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, why, I ask, are those
feeble expression of their views-that I may have the oppor-
the lips through which such an intimation is circulated?-
(Cheers.) I make these observations because the Right
tunity of expressing with extreme brevity our views of the Hon. Gentleman is no inconsiderable person. He is one of
general question which has been mooted, and particularly of . the foremost men of all this world," and according to the
the measure offered to our consideration. Sir, we have been not very delicate intimation of his friends, he is even likely
informed by a Minister of the Crown that an aggression has soon to occupy a still more responsible situation than he at
been committed against the supremacy of the Sovereign and present tills. - (Hear, hear.) He wears the white robe,
the honour of the nation. By the same means that this in- avid stands in the forum a candidate for the consulate.-
formatioa was conveyed to us, we were informed that the (Cheers.) It will be well for the people to pause over the
aggression was committed by a prince of no great power. observations he has made, for they have been both strange
FL flowing up that intimation, the Hon. and Learned Member and singular in the course of this session.-(Hear, hear.) I
for Sheffield has talked of that power as a poor feeble priest; proposed one day a revision of the taxation in respect to
and more than one Hon. Gentleman has taken several op- the suffering tanner, and the Right Hon. Baronet threatens
portunities of reminding us that the present possessor of the me with a mutiny in the army.-(Cheers.) Some elections
Papal see was surrounded by French bayonets-a fact which took place not exactly favourable to the views he enuncie
has been reiter ned as a reason for our countenancing the aced, and he threateus us with Parliamentary reform.-
aggression which the Government has confessed has taken (Laughter.) A measure is brought forward to resist what is
place. Si ow, Sir, I would remind the House that more than styled a foreign aggression, hostile to the honour of the na-
three centuries ago the Pope was not only supported-if I tion and the supremacy of the Sovereign, and he says that
may use the expression-by French bayonets, but that Rome there will be a rebellion in Ireland. - (Renewed laughter.)
was taken and sacked by a Vrench prince, and that the Pope Now, I hear in the course of eight weeks three remarkable
of those days suffered indignities greater than Pius IX. has assertions, which are well worthy the consideration of those
ever been subjected to. Yet, since that period, the greatest who are uncertain in mind and are likely to alarm those who
achievements of the Papal see Have occurred ; and since that
.ire peaceably disposed. Let us consider, then, whether the
period, and notwithstanding the strong will of Henry VIII. Right lion. Gentleman is likely to become the pilot that will
and the pure spirit of Edward VI., the Protestant Establish- weather the storm. There was one great measure brought
ment in England was subverted; end it is only because the forward for Ireland in the cou se of the last twenty years,
attempt of Phillip and Mary was not successful that lam which was not successful, and that was the only one that
not at this moment perhaps addressing a Popish Speaker was proposed by the Minister which did not succeed. It was
and a Popish Parliament.--(Hear.) Now, Sir, whatever one that would have despoiled the Protestant Establishment
may be our opinions of this aggression, it is not true-it is of part of its revenues in order to p atially endow the Roman
not wise to despise the foe who committed it.- (Hear, hear.) Catholic Church in Ireland. That measure was brought
I deny, Sir, that this prince is a prince of no great power. forward by the Noble Lord, but it was defeated by the ophoe
I say he is a prince of very great power-if not of the sition of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. This
greatest. I will not dwell on those millions of his sub- slows how little acquainted, after all, we are with all that
jects of whose existence we have been so often reminded by takes place about us, and how difficult it is for us to form an
speakers on both sides, but I will remind the House that, in- accurate conception of contemporary events, even of those in
dependent of that circumstance the Pope has at his corn- which we ourselves have mingled, when it is reserved for
mend, between the regular and secular clergy, an army of this debate for the House of Commons and the country to
1,000,000 of priests, governed by thousands of bishops and be informed what the motives were which induced the Right
ar hbishops, and that he was the general and lieutenant Hon. Gentleman to take the course which he then pursued,
general of this great host. - (Hear.) And is this, Sir, the It appeared that the opposition given to the appropriation
power that we are told is to be treated in the same way clause upon his part was solely influenced by an abstract ob-
as we treat the Wesleyan Conference.-(Cheers.) Is this a jection to endowments.-(Hear, hear.) I woeder if that was
power to be associated with the last invention of Scotch the motive which animated Lord Stanley, who was then the
Dissenters ?-(Hear, hear.) When I listened, Sir, to the companion of the Right Hon. Baronet, for they both stood
ingenious reasonings with which this fallacy was supported, together on their chivalry. But it is certain that neither
and to the fallacious analogies of the Right lion. Gentle- this House nor the country was in the secret, or did really
man, I for a moment supposed they were only a display of believe that the opposition of the Right lion. Baronet to the
dialectics to adorn the debate.-(hear, hear.) But when appropriation clause was founded upon an abstract objection
I remember the high position of those who have indulged in to endowments. If I had heard it from any other person I
them, I could not help suspecting that there was a concealed should imagine this objection to conic from a titular arch-
object, and that their comparisons were more pregnant with bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, from the cardinal, or
meaning than they seemed to be.- (Hear.) And, indeed, the general of the Jesuits. Was it for this that the Cabinet
Sir, it has scarcely been concealed by the Right lion. Gen- of Lord Grey was subverted? Was it for this that the Right
tleman who has just sat down, for he says, "If you Honourable Gentleman hail enlisted himself under that Con-
apply this doctrine to the Queen's supremacy, and to those servative banner which he has so faithfully served?-
adhering to the Roman Catholic communion, on what plea (Ironical cheers.) Sir, I don't believe there is the
can y.O refuse to apply it to Wesleyans, or to Scotch Dis- slightest chance or fear of civil war in Ireland.
senters? " But, Sir, the converse of the proposition is I ogres with the Right Honourable Member for the Uni-
equally true, rod if that interpretation of religious liberty versity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) that the principle of civil
supported by the Right Honourable Gentleman and the
ac- liberty is too deeply impressed on the minds of the people of
Honourable and Learned Member for Plymouth is to be
this age that they could be stimulated to the commission of
cepted and applied to the Church of Rome, on what plea an such unhappy outrages. It is utterly impossible that
can you refuse to apply the same principle of religious
Ire
liberty not only to the Church of Rome, but to the Church land could be governed on the principles of the Protes-
tant ascendancy ; but equally certain is it that no Govern-
of England ?- (Cheers.) On what ground can you vindi- merit can exist that is not faithfully devoted to the Protea-
cate a restriction of the principle which you support, so far tent Constitution of this country.-(Great cheering.) In its
as the Church of England is concerned? Is she not to have maintenance are involved greater interests than the fate of a
the command of her internal discipline and internal arrange- Government-namely, the fate of the crown and the destiny
ments ? Why is she not to have a synod of action?- of the empire; and, trust me, not the least important interest
(Cheers.) Why is the Church of England alone to acknow- involved in it is that of the civil and religious liberties of the
ledge the supremacy of the Queen ?-(Hear, hear.) Why, Roman Catholics themselves.-(Cheers.)
Sir, we see the trouble involved in the principle assumed.- Sir G. GREY said it was impossible not to be struck with
(Hear, hear.) The only inference you can draw from the
new philcsophy of the Right Honourable Gentleman and his the fact, that amongst the most able of the opponents to
friends is, that they are opposed to the alliance between this Bill-men of great talent, ingenuity, and sophistry-in
Chie-ch and State.-(Loud cheers.) I believe the House pointing out objections to the course the Government were
of Commons are not yet prepared to support that prin- pursuing, and in detailing their difficulties and embarrass-
ciple. -(Renewed cheers.) Sir, I cannot deal with this ag-
merits, there was a remarkable absence of any one fixed
gression of the Pope on the abstract principles which have
or definite principle upon which their objections to
Catholic
the Go-
been introduced into the discussion. I must look to the cir- ment measure rested. It wasasserted by
cumstances which surround us. On one side it is acknow- Members of that House, for whom he entertained the
the Roman
lodged that there has been a great revival of Romanism in
most sincere respect, that the Bill embodied.. the
Europe. No one denies that. But, on the other hand, it is and was opposed
atdo religious
principle of persecution,
said that there has been a great revival of Protestantism in
England. What will be the issue of the struggle which theassertion. Heagreed
Right in support of such an
the
reedom. He challenged any one to
He
the
Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet the
with the Right Honourable Gentleman Member for
Member for Ripon seemed to think inevitable in Europe, I the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) in the principle
will not take upon me to say. The circumstances are so which he had laid down as the only one that should guide
complicated and the catastrophe so awful, that we shrink us in dealing with it-namely, that it should be framed upon
from attempting to form an opinion of so terrible a contin- the ground of imperial policy. So far as the spiritual pro-
gency. What may be the issue in our own country is unfor- gress of the Roman Catholic faith and spiritual means were
tunatelv a subject on which every man is much more quali- concerned, we should be departing from the principles which
guided its if we in any degree fettered by law the progress of
fled to form a judgment. I confess the possible result is one
which makes me shudder, and I think Government would that religion ; and he admitted that his Roman Catholic
only be doing its duty, if a contest between Romanism and
those principles of equality and freedom, or did net allow
friends would have a clear right to complain, if we violated
Protestantism was inevitable in this country, if it Ptop•or
measures and advised a line of conduct to prevent such mischiFfs our fellow-subjects the tame extent of freedom which we
and to counteract such evils.-(Hear.) 'I come now to ingeuaird he did not regret the act of the Pope, because it had the
e claimeed for ourselves. On this subject he could only say
whether the measure proposed is adequate forsuch
an
and whether, if the circumstances detailed be authentic, it effect of invoking the strong attachment of the people
of this country to the Protestant Church, and of drawing
is calculated to prevent the mischief contemplated. I re-
together in one bond of union the members of the
proems of the
member I ventured, on the introduction of the measure, to
the.different Protestant communions, not for the purpose of
say that it was not equal to
forcing on the Legislature any undue restrictions, but for the
Noble Lord-that it asserted no
of
ew
anhodursywine-
dicated no right. After the lapse some purpose of repelling what they considered to be an aggres-
sion upon their rights •
that anything ot a
had another version of the measure by the chief law .
officer of the Crown, which, gave it a more important • and liberties. He deeply regretted
1 th titles illegitimately
character. The Attorney-Geueral. informed us that the
an aggression
into these debates. There were two points to be here
polemical character should enter
considered. The first was, whether there had been such
measure would not
only dea wi
endowments. to persons
assumed, but with bequests and
and he reminded us, in a tone of
assuming these titles; . dependence of the nation, as called upon Parliament to inter-
on the sovereignty of the Queen and the in-
I self-complacency, that ssnodaisintl,,action would be dealt
The whole of
with. What, then, was the • . fere, and next whether if this be answered in the affirma-
the Attorney-General was suddenly withdrawn, projectsand we- tire, this was a measure which Parliament, under the cir-
ere told that we were only to discuss a Bill containing ' ' in his very able speech had defended the
cumstances ought to adopt? The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Plymouth
wone clause, and when the Secretary of State made this
announcement on the part of Ministers, he scarcely con- act of the
Pope, as based on the principle of religious tree-
cesled their opinion that it would he inoperative in Ire- dom ; and had denied that it was opposed to the law of na-
tions.He had said it was only in that manner that the or-
laud and might be evaded in England ; but that it was t- n which the Roman Catholics had a right to use,
necessary to pass it as a demonstrati .n and as a protest.- ganinil
a°
l dbecarried out.; and the conclusion to which the Hon.
(Hear, hear.) I ask, Sir, what could be a better vin- could
Learned Gentleman had come to was, that Parliament
dicatiun of the course proposed by Lord Stanley had nothing to do with that attempt. The lion. Gentleman
than this proceeding of the Ministry ? - (hear, hear.) if who had followed him in the debate, however, bad cuter-
the best course was to protest in the face of Europe, would
not a resolution of the two Houses have been of more avail, rained a stronger sense of the aggression, and his quarrel
with the Government was, that it proposed to do too little, and
not only for that purpose, but also to sustain the spirit of not too much in the matter. Another Honourable Member
England, than the project of a law, which in the course of had considered that some legislation was necessary, but that
six weeks has undergone countless transformations, and it ought not to be directed against the subjects of her Ma-
which has been announced by its projectors is ineffective, and jesty, but against the Pope himself. Now he (Sir George
the effect of which is even, perhaps, more than doubtful ? I Grey) could not see how legislation could take place in re-
want to place before the House the reasons for my disap- spect of that question, without affecting the subjects of her
proval of the measure. My first objection is, that by im- Majesty. The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr.
placation it confesses that the conduct of Cardinal Wiseman,
Sidney Herbert) had said that the act of the Pope was
of which you complain, was not illegal. It must have been defensible, and had asked how the civil or political state of
either one or the other. if it were legal, it was not an this country was affected by it? And he had gone on even
offence-if it were illegal, why then did you not deal with it to claim credit for the pope for appointing bishops idatestl
by the law ? But he was told that the law was obsolete.