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

"spiritual" matter? lie (Mr. Muntz) called it ex-
ceedingly temporal.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") He
could give the hame of a gentleman who had personal
knowledge of the transaction. The question before the
Rouse was not one of civil and religious liberty. This
country had been subjected to a great and impudent ag-
gression, which was the foundation of a premeditated and
insulent attack on the Protestantism of Europe.—(Hear.)
What a feather would it be in the cap of the Pope were he
able to say of the people of this country, " See how I have
subjected them! Have I not made bishops for lEngland ?
Have I not superseded their very church?'' he would
do his best to support the independence of the Pro-
testant religion, believing it for the interest of the
Country that the Protestant religion should be maintained.
He never would have it said by his children that he had gone
out of the way to encourage the influence and increase of a
religion which, in his opinion, did not conduce to the inte-
rests or the prosperity of the country.
Mr. SCULLY thought the speech of the Hon. Member for
Birmingham would have answered very well before the
Passing of the Emancipation Act, for it was directed against
the Catholic religion. How the so-called aggression affected
the pockets or persons of any one in this country, he could
not understand. The receipt only gave to England what had
existed in Ireland for 14 centuries. As a friend of religious
liberty he opposed the Bill. Members of other persuasions
than the Roman Catholic had denied that any aggression had
been committed ; and the number of Roman Catholics having
increased from 67,000 in 1769, to upwards of 1,000,000,
their chapels now exceeding 800, and colleges, monasteries,
and other institutions having sprung up, there were good
reasons why a change should be made in the mode of govern-
ing the Roman Catholic Church in this country. What had
been done could not be undone. The total withdrawal of a
161111 or rescript was very rare ; and there was no reason for
• the withdrawal of the rescript establishing a hierarchy. The
lion. and Learned Member for Plymouth had shown that the
language used in creating vicars-apostolic was similar to
that used in the rescript. There was just as much aggres-
sion in appointing vicars-apostolic as in appointing bishops.
The Bill would place the Roman Catholics of England in
a different position from the Roman Catholies in the wilds
of Australia or the back settlements of Canada. If the pre-
rogatives of the Crown had been invaded, it might be asked
whether these prerogatives did not extend to the colonies?
13 t, if the State paid the Roman Catholic bishops in the
colonies, why not allow them to exist here on the voluntary
system? The results of the present proceeding would
be of a melancholy and serious character as re-
garded Ireland, where the Roman Catholic hierarchy was
recognized by law and custom, by Courts, in Acts of Parlia-
tient, and in the very proceedings of the House of Com-
mons. The 24th section of the Act of 1829 had been vir-
tually repealed by subsequent proceedings; for no chaplain
Could be appointed to a workhouse without the recommenda-
tion of the Roman Catholic bishop; and under the Cha-
ritable Bequests Act the title of a parish priest to whom a
bequest was left must be proved by his credentials received
front a Roman Catholic bishop. The statement of the Hon
and Learned Member for Dundalk on the effect of the clause
in the Bill taken in connexion with the preamble had not
been answered. In his pastoral of February, 1851, Arch-
bishop Murray sail the Biel, though nominally directed
against Catholic bishops, was in reality directed against
their religion ; and Dr. Ryan had expressed the feeling
which pervaded Ireland, where the Bill was regarded with
Universal detestation, when he stated at a public meeting
that if the Government waived to ruin the country they
Could not have adopted a measure more certain to produce
that effect. These were the opinions not of persons who
Were accustomed to take part in politics, but of men of re-
tired habits, who interfered little in the public questions of
the day.—(Hear.) It was said that public opinion pressed
for legislation on this subject. He believed that there was a
Certain party in the country anxious for legislation, but
their principal object was to cover up and conceal the dis-
seneions that prevailed in the Church of England itself. He
Warned the House against being led away by a cry of danger
tte the Church ; a cry which, as the great Grattan observed,
°ad always been mischievous to the country; and he trusted
the House would consider seriously the consequences likely
to follow from their yielding to a cry so fallacious and foolish.
(Heer.) Strong charges had been made against Roman
Catholics of holding a divided allegiance, but he maintained
that the Roman Catholics of this country held as undivided
an allegiance to the Crown as the most loyal of their Protes-
tant fellow-countryman could possibly do. At the passing
91 the Emancipation Act in 1829 an illustrious Royal Duke
1° another place gave full testimony to this undivided alle-
giance on the part of Roman Catholics. The same loyalty
actuated them now as then, and he hoped no further attempts
Would be made in the course of the debate to impugn the
conduct and character of Roman Catholics upon that head.
"'(Heer, hear.) If proof were necessary to satisfy the House
as to the loyalty of that portion of their fellow- subjects, he
luight refer to the evidence given before the Committee of
825 by the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, in which he explicitly
stated that the authority of the Pope was confined alto-
gether to spiritual matters—that Catholics obeyed him in
spiritual matters only, and that in civil matters their alle-
giance to the Crown was completely undivided.—(Hear.) It
1394.8 said the late Papal act was an innovation on the
~est institutions of the country; but he must remind the
;leuse that their greatest institutions were derived from
10tnan Catholics themselves before the Reformation took
etlect, ant that they could have no desire to infringe in
the least degree on those institutions. The Hon. Member
for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) said the recent act of the
ris'Pe interfered with the Protestant institutions of the
but he gave no proof in support of the asser-
'°h, and he (Mr. Scully) denied that it was the case. None
of the great statesmen of the present day, except those con-
nected with the Government, supported legislation on this
question. A Noble Earl (Aberdeen) in another place ob-
Served, with reference to this subject, that "conscience and
°Pinion were beyond the sphere cf legislation;" and he also
them, that seeing the Catholic Church was tolerated in
this country, it followed that they should have liberty to
.earry out the organization of their Church in a regular man-
tier.—(Hear, hear.) These sentiments were, he was happy to
lay, participated in by nearly all the statesmen of the day
not connected with Government. The House should not for-
get that theytwere legislating for millions of Roman Catho-
lics in this country, and that by passing this measure they
Would cast an insult on those millions- 'nw shnolel also
bear in mind the thousands of foreigners, mostly Roman Ca-
tholic, who would visit us during the present year, and con-
sider what opinion they would form of the religious liberty of
a country which could adopt such a course of legislation.—
( gear, hear.) Millions of his fellow-countrymen in Ireland
lilt anxiously on this subject, and he begged the House se-
riously t• consider the injurious effect which such a measure
as the present could not fail to have upon all the interests
of that country.—(llear, hear.)
kr. HUME looked upon this discussion as one of the
loost unfortunate occurrences that had taken place during his
(,)ng Parliamentary career. The Bill proposed by the Go-
4,croment was the first step of retrogression, which would
Place the Irish people in a position by which they would be
retilered a source of weakness instead of strength to the
Nintry. To see the House of Commons in this age occupied
14 discussing such a measure was the most humiliating pic-
ture that could be drawn. They were frightened with
tdows, and were bringing forward acts of the mediroval
„ 'Res as if they were applicable to the present time. It was
melancholy to see such a measure as this engaging the tlat-
tention of Parliament to the total suspension of all public
business. The promoters of the Bill were acting incon-
'latently with the principle on which the Anglican Church
ibielf depended ; for it was a measure by which they sought
,
deprive one-third of their fellow-countrymen of the right
111 Private judgment. It was tyrannical, it was against the
retestant principle, and against that policy which this
v°llntry had for the last thirty years been carrying out.
And was it not, above all, melancholy to think that the
religious
Lord, who had always been the advocate of
;e'igious liberty, should be the man to change that
'Nem which was going on so prosperously in Ireland, and
which was placing Protestants and Catholics in that country
the best possible footing, and to introduce in its stead
'eological hatreds and religious strife ? It was a grievous
and a most unaccountable blunder. Within 21 boars after
P'ading the Noble Lard's letter to the Bishop of Durham he
keMr. Hume), in writing to a friend, stated that it was impos-
ble it could express the genuine sentiments of Lord John
Russell—that it was impossible one whose life had been
devoted to the cause of promoting civil and religious liberty
could have become so changed and have so suddenly assumed
e character of a persecutor, and that his belief was the
ltetter was the production of some impostor. If, however,
i°o Noble Lord was the author of the letter, then he told his
Zicod that the Noble Lord must have been seeking to find em-
'°Yment for the ensuing session, and in that ease the whole
!scion would be lost,'and the business of the nation utterly
neglected Five months had elapsed since he (Mr. Hume) thus
*xote to his friend, and he would ask the House whether the
the very letter. The Hon. Member for Birmingham had
415oken of aggression—indeed, " aggression, aggression," was
the burden of his song—but the Hon. Gentleman never
stated what that aggression was; he denounced the Catholic
religion, and therefore voted for the Bill in order to put down
that religion. If liberty could not exist where the Catholic
where
existed, in what a situation was this country placed,
"ere the Catholic population was increasing year after
hear! The Hon. Member for Birmingham would permit
im (Mr. Hume) to say, that the liberties of England de-
pended upon its public institutions, and not on the religious
opinions of the people. What was meant by religious liberty ?
He understood it to mean, the power of enjoying perfect free-
dom in one's religious belief, and of using all the forms that
Were considered necessary to carry out that belief.lf so,
then in what did this alleged aggression consist? It had now
been proved that the letter of Dr. Wiseman, which had given
40 much offence, was published without his authority. If
that were really the fact, did it not at once take away the
thole ground on which this charge of aggression was
,)unded ? For years past it had been allowed that vicars-
!Postolic sho hi exist in this country, and they were bound
1,•? obey the orders of the Pope in everything connected with
faith. The Catholics of this country petitioned to have
bin `cops appointed, and in 1848 bishops accordingly took the
PistL:e of vicars-apostolic, by which their hierarchy was cona-
D'et:ed, and the full religious liberty of the Roman Catholics
established. What aggression, what insult was committed
that proceeding ? In what manner could it be injurious
° this country ? Why, by Act of Parliament they had again
and again admitted the existence of bishops in Ireland. He
denied, therefore, that any aggression had been committed.
Was it worthy of the House of Commons, at this day, con-
tudering what was allowed to be done in our colonies, to be
engaged in passing a measure which it was never intended
tillould be carried into effect? It might be fit play for chil-
ten, but it was really below the dignity of grown-up men to
so occupied. It was pandering to the worst passions of men.
if the people of England were to be satisfied by having
"ach a measure passed, why not confine it to England ? Why
!.ttend it to Ireland or to Scotland ? Thy were told that the
`! leen had been insulted in having ere supremacy invaded;
tut, although that supremacy existed in England, his coun-
r)ltrien did not admit its existence in Scotland. It was not
VI flitted either by the Episcopal or the Presbyterian Church.
4Ppeared, therefore, to him that there was neither justice,
res Son, nor principle connected with the Bill ; but that it was
altogether an act of oppression towards those who had
~,4,4erto been free. lie could not support it, because, in his
ee nit was a Bill of pains and penalties, and was the
io-tkl.rining of a system which would not be confined to the
``„°flaan Catholics alone, but would by-and-by be extended to
.n Dissenters of every denomination. He regretted to see
`4s Dissenters, who had been allowed to enjoy their civil
rights, joining in the crusade against the Roman Catholics,
t ut th d (
vs_ mo p em own.— Cheers ) The Dissenters
avin achieved their own liberty, were. found assisting to
-vat theg trammels upon the Roman Catholics. He believed
that
forty-nine petitions were presented from the Wes-
I) Yens that night against the Papal aggression. He did
b?t know from what party in the Wesleyan connexion,
17nether from the new or the old ; but he hoped the re-
°rrnea party would outnumber the other, for the Conference
wished to keep the people in ignorance and to become them-
Selves the Pope.—(Bear, hear.) They wished to have the
Power
.of the Pope, and to refuse their congregations any
right or power whatever, for the right of private judgment
Was 7 denied by the Conference, as it was by the Pope. He did
"t quarrel with one more than the other, but he did not like
i()
° See the Wesleyans calling for measures of repression against
a body of their fellow-Dissenters. If this Bill passed, and
werel, put into operetion, how would they govern Ireland ?
ould the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. llatchell) get
ucheering
and tell the House 2—kleoucl and prolonged and ironical
`,,lsering from the Irish Members.) The House had heard
'44 °Pinions of the law ofticera of Spglahr,l, Alut they LW a