The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-18 00:00:00

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

The Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord President of the Coun-
cil, returned to town yesterday, from his seat, Bowood Park,
Wilts.

IMPERIAL PAItLIAMENT•

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 17.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL—ADJOURNED

DEBATE.
Mr. MOORE resumed the debate on the second
reading of this Bill. He said that the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, had professed that he would clear the ground
for the House to come to a proper understanding
on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) So far, however,
from clearing up any of the difficulties which sur-
rounded the Bill, the Right Hon. Baronet had kicked up
such a dust that he had made the ground much darker
and more difficult. He thought, however, that it would
be conceded that the opponents of the Bill had since that
time cleared the ground of a great deal—in the
first place, they had cleared the ground of the Hon.
Baronet himself for the space of ten days, and since the
restoration of himself and his colleagues they had cleared
the ground of at least three-fourths of the Bill ;
they had cleared it of anything which could ever
have imparted any shadow of consistency to it.
The Noble Lord at the head of the Government had
openly avowed that the opinions of his former life were
blunders and misconceptions, and that the present Bill
was founded on an entire change of his opinion. They
bad also exposed to the public view the paltry strings
that pulled the puppet of intolerance and bigotry.
and shown how the same strings that pulled the puppet s
head up were ready to pull it down again. Be did
not wish to refer to the erratic fights of indi-
viduals, but when he heard them accompanied
with the cheers of the House of Commons
he could scarcely forbear commenting upon them.
He referred to the speech of the lion. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Tamworth, and as he had heard that the lowest
Jacobins were the Gamaliels at whose feet the Hon.
Baronet delighted to sit, he hoped that from that source
the Hon. Member drew his matter us well as his manner.
The first question to be decided was, whether the act of the
Popo was an aggression, expressed in insulting language;
secondly, whether it had been a temporal or a spiritual
aggression; thirdly, supposing it to be an aggression, was
there reasonable ground for the Pope to believe that it was
an act offensive to the British Government, or one which,
on the contrary, was not only innocent but acceptable ;
fourthly, if the Pope had erred in the conclusion, whether
the relations of the Government with the See of Rome were
or were not such as to warrant that error— in a word, whether
the error was with the country or with the Pope ; and fifthly,
stilt assuming it to be an aggression, whether the House was
of opinion hat it was an act which called for such a vindi-
cati n as that proposed by her Majesty's Government, and
which was likely to lead to such a serious consummation.
With regard to the first proposition he (Mr. Moore) freely
conceded that the act of the Pope was an aggression—
a spiritual aggression of a most decided character;
but then he maintained that the Pope was dis-
tinctly in his right, as every man, native and
alien, had a right to promulgate his opinions when such
opinions were tolerated by the State. In religion, which
lived upon persecution, aggression was an inevitable neces-
sity. Without aggression the world would never have bad
Christianity any more, than persecution. The question, then,
was, could such aggression be opposed successfully by penal
laws? That the Pope exercised spiritual authority over one-
third of the people of these kingdoms could not be denied.
That the Papal power' W kimperiuiu'in ld not
stop to.dispute ; but he would maintain that it Nyotim be as
reasonable to pail an Act of Parliarnent.ag4nst the hifluence
of the moon on the tides as • against .the-immatezial and.
powerful authority otthe head -of the Catholic Church. Ar-
rogance had been imputed to this act of the Pope -Spiritual
arrogance ; but the Turk on the banks of the Euphrates did
not approach in the smallest degree to the arrogance of the
English people on the subject of religion. In tact if all the
pride of all the fallen angels had entered into their souls,
they could not, in his (Mr. Moore's) opinion, exhibit a
greater amount of arrogance in that respect ; and in proof of
this he referred to the address of the prelates of the English
Church to the Queen, wherein language the most illiberal,
the most labouredly and grossly insulting, had been em-
ployed in speaking of the religion of one-third of her Ma-
jesty's subjects. What was the insult or aggression
of one head of a Church to those of a whole hier-
archy, whom the Catholics were condemned to pay for
anathemising them. In spiritual aggression as well as
insult the Catholics were therefore the debtors of that
hierarchy; and though they were obliged to imprison
their pride in their own hearts, it was not the less strong for
biding its time, and certainly they would not forget their
debt. The next question he should consider was, whether
this aggression was temporal or spiritual in its character.
He asserted it was not the former.; and he had not been able,
in all that was said or written on the subject, to discover a
clear description bow it because so, and still less a proof that
such it was. The Noble Lord (the Member for London) had
made a long speech in invidiant, quoting the words of Cardi-
nal Wiseman's letter, " We govern," &c., as an invasion of
the prerogative of the Sovereign ; but with the exception of
this wretched perversion of that ecclesiastical letter, that or
any of the speeches which preceded or followed it did n t
define that charge, or contain any evidence in support of it.
He (Mr. Moore) maintained that the whole case got up on
this ground was disingenuous; for all assumption of temporal
authority on the part of the Pope had been over and over
disclaimed. In truth the entire argument of the Noble Lord
and those who supported him in that respect was the same as
had been used by the old ladies of this country at any time
within the last hundred years ; and nothing more or less
than what the Noble Lord himself had so often scorned and
derided at any time within the last quarter of a century. He
(Mr. Moore), however, looked upon the best reply to the
Noble Lord's arguments—if such they could be called • on
this point, to be the statement of the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Bath, respecting the organisation of the spiritual body
designated W esleysns in this country. The fact was, and it
was well known in England, that Cardinal Wiseman no
more meant that he should govern Middlesex temporally
than that he should govern the whole country. The Hon.
and Learned Member for Oxford had th own overboard that
co-rse assertion of temporal power, and taken refuge in a
fine-drawn distinction intelligible to no one but himself; and
yet for such a distinction the whole country was to be torn
in pieces. The Hon. Member for the University of Oxford
urged that the Church of Rome claimed authority over every
baptised Christian. But was not this claim made by every
Church? The Hon. and Learned Member for the city of
Oxford might say, no ; but an Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford said, yes; and he said moreover that
every bishop in the Established Church claimed this jurisdic-
tion. Thus, then, were the bishops of the Episcopal Church
in this country, the bishops cf the ecc esiastical Church in
Scotland, and the bishops of the garrison Church in Ireland
claiming all the dissenters, members of the Church of
Scotland, and Roman Catholics; but did the Dissenters,
the Presbyterians, or the Roman Catholics care an atom
for this claim. The Roman Catholics, he could speak for
them, certainly protested against the bishops cf the Esta-
blished Church putting their hands in their pockets; but, as
regards their claims to their souls, they regarded it with the
most perfect indifference. The argument of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Oxford, that the hierarchy would be
followed by the canon law, and that under the canon law
the Pope might depose the Sovereign and dissolve the alle-
giance of the subject, was as absurd as that which d
alleged
that absolution would be denied to all who oppose ecclesi-
astics, in the same manner as was done by the Archbishop of
Sardinia in regard to the author of the Siccardi law. There
had been a hierarchy in Ireland for centuries, and the canon
law was in force there; but none of these consequences had
occurred ; while as regarded the refusa lightlutothough
the people of that country were, or theevbe
bull In
h or, a(i_ dm
rt.o o proceedor e cl
.iasntohte
helirsay, d
British
their clergy, no one cared for the canonl,aaf
against the orhieni,
priests.an d no oneln was,hon esatbovtrentahl,
believed that tahnathisthh enononrtlysu againstitor
Government in case they proceeded with the present Bill.
thviehoclerwgeyuwi
As regarded the question of spiritual power, the Attorney-
Generaland that with the insult the H
in partibus p eviousb, ouse
sat 1 it was no more
state wa.fatsheixrgesrcsisoeddebscyribbiesdbobpys
had nothing to do. Yet for a
the first law officer of the Crown, the country was to be torn
f t- e Pope,
to pieces. The next question was, whether the aggression
if such it was, on the part o
_ens.was erne which he had
reason to conceive would be (!ill
itself and e
the Government, or,
ress it on notice of the
on the other hand, innocent and not unacceptable
ho
_been accused of makirg va-
to them. On this point thefiNobileeLord at the head of the
Government had
smadelda cnoontession so themhuiliating that
rd had p
he (Mr. stoore)
hitiastimonindt.he
INiaoholeirL.okirdaaarde-)
riliciouussesiatTembeeldjobneht_Lue subject at issue in 1834 and in 1845
—statements directly contrary to his present course ot
considerableac-
ad a
e h a n
mated them, accounting for his conduct on this occasion by
ghedes
however, pped confidently evea to those Ho bl notira e
Members who were most opposed to him, whether this an-
swer would be held as satisfactory, or any other than diplo-
matic. The Hon. Member then
sayingtion ; a
r, appeal after
h
referred to the letter of the
Hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire, and concluded by
00 n tending that the Pope lead reasonable grounds to suppose
in the
a sanction, would that his measure, if it did not obt •
uld at
least command the silence of
But if there had been
mind of the Pope, the any misconception on this point in the
state of the relations between the
British Cabinet and the
Papal Court were such as to render
it perfectly excusable. There
_ was no country in the a orld
where such a monstrous fiction was maintained as that the
religion of one thir of the inhabitants—which
religion was admi •
tted by the State- should be ignored
by the
law. But it w
for ages was not unparalleled in the history of England ;
after France had cast out the English power, the
Sovereigns
of England claimed the title of Kings of France
also. At the present moment Hon. Members distinctly
swore that the Pope had • • lin this realm,
no spiritua authority
when the contrary was well known to them to be the fact.
And
an internecine struggle was almost provoked for the
maintenance of a falsehood so arrogant. The Hon. Member
then referred to the debate on the Bill for diplomatic rela-
tions with Rome, and asserted that the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government was laughing in the face of the
House when he made his statement in respect of the Papal
aggression. It was not the division of the c untry into dio-
ceses that made the aggression, but it was the people them-
selves who had fancied the aggression. It was not a proper
vindication of the law to pass enactments that were not to
be carried into effect, or were to be carried into effect in • ne
part of the kingdom and not in the other. This course was
more degrading to our national honour than anything else
that could be imagined.— (Hear.)
Mr. WIGRAM (who was indistinctly heard at first) said,
this measure had been t-eated, during the debate, as if it
was but of little consequence to this country, and as if it
merely referred to a speculative opinion. He was sa isfied
this was a mistake. Wherever the system of Rome pre-
vailed, the liberty and prosperity of a nation d clined—
wherever than, system was checked, liberty and prosperity
flourished.— (Hear, hear.) Look to the vario'ts states own-
ing the sway of Rome. Spain had sunk to a contemptible
rank among nation., under the away of Rome. On the other

hand, the states of Holland, since their freedmi from the
Papal yoke, had grown iu wealth and civilizat'oD,
TBheo
offered a difect contra it to Spain. Look to England.
prosperity and liberty of England were owing to the
Reformation.-(Hear, h:ar.) Scotland owed its prosperity
to a similar cause. In Switzerland the traveller could tell,
by the very aspect of the peopl-, which cantor" we 3,
Roman Catholic and which Protestant: ln Canue,,
the distinction between koman Catholic distrifh;
and Protestant districts was most marked. In '''
United States the same result prevailed. So in MeXico, so
in Ireland-(Hear)-and in ether places where the',omrr.
Catholic system existed. These examples were most et 11‘..
ing ; but he did not mean or wish to atttibute
quences which v ere witnessed in Roman Catholic COuntries.
to the peculiarities of the creed of Rome.---I.llear.) lie at-
tributed them to the Ecclesiastical system of ROMe.•-• (li,e!'il
To no other cause could he attribute the differences , wu?e_.
lie had pointed out. These examples strongly proved that
it was the duty of every Government who valued civil e'l
religious liberty to see that the progress of the Romano
Catholic system be checked.- (Hear.) With respecetdtd
the introduction of the Papal bull into this country, hided
not consider that any portion of a bull which Itcontemplal`.
purely spiritual objects ought to be legislated againt , a
purely spiritual matters were to be met, they nuts, be 'e`tild
a different way - not by legislation, but by reatonintc_a„r.)
by the diffusion ofsound and Scriptural tducati n.- UT a
Ofi.conse
But the I'apal movement had art aspect v and
very different kind. He affirmed it vas an aggressio ,
an aggression upon those principles which 0n#11,,,
.....is
be respected and kept sacred by every Roman Cattlyat',3
(Hear, hear.) The very basis of the compact of 18%.9 was
that the Pope was to have no temporal power ilLat:'id
countr. He cou
soap regard the introduction of the
.1- F
bulloie ar, other
hweiasre. than
rrThe
sole
n frobject
e on
ft ofthethabt
Lill,sne canon
establishment of a hierarchy, was to introduce the
law, which was, in reality, intended to interfere wl
heatrb.;
temporal action of the laws of this country. - (Rear'
avowal by
There needed no other proof than the distinct
•ay.01,,.a.
Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral address. Cardinal Iv "
man stated-
-0 eecular
sure of that preposterous cant of the age, that th _
eq_.,
" All that we plead against is, the adoption in any leea-
power, as such, is bound by its duty to God to extened_cuu;
toleration to all religions, irrespective of the peelr iyr that
rincicrlei--b;
stances which may attach to each separate case creed ,
as +.B
every men has a right to adopt s -ch a religious
r I power is
pleases is untrue; to say, &so, that theme mpo_
f oral power 13
pleases is untrue; to say, &so, that the teP the props-
never called upon to p.,t obstacles in the aY ci) is
gation of religious errors, is also untrue; and
on
true that the English law professee to toler
hts as the only
that ground, as well as on our indefeasible rig
claims
of the
true Church, while we meddle not with the
sects about us, we take our stand." the two following
It was suggested it could be only in one of
forms:- her and full consti-
" Either the Holy See must issue anot
hich would be
but
stet
tution, which would supply all wants, but W
d as a special
necessarily complicated and voluminous, an ,
sr the real and
provision, would necessarily be temporary,
extended to
oe,perfectly
complete code of the Church must fart once
compatible with
the Catholic Church in England, soas
al.
But,
its social position ; and this, provision would be final.
its nexpedient
in order to eopt this second and mere
ahateuglitholic Must
one condition was necessary, and that was, t- ~,. unter
have a hierarchy. The canon law is itiapP livable
vicars apostolic."
So, therefore, when Rome was considering bow it -sh•°-‘11!
ereeti°,l6,,,,
accede to the application made to it, it decided on
If that canon law was introduced, he asserted it wet ld pith
hierarchy solely with the view of introducing the air t.l"t,
the Court of Rome ower to iuterfere this cone country w"
'''' doctrine
temporal matters.- (Ileac, hear.) He assorted'p,
the lenty
of the canon law was ro antiquated law. There'we,, aas
of mo 'ern proo's of this, and he need only refer which it was
Canonicum," published in i 831, at Rome, in..,,__,,.0 an
asserted of Reiffensteul that the Pope had a right t. make
ecclesiastical constitution for the whole world, and, as or
of Christ, had a supreme power, if necessary,.. dud
--It wag
disposing of all temporal goods of all Christians,.
_on6ned
elear, therefore, that the object of hierarchy was no; utare
to temporal things. It was right, ther, tore, for the legt
which
of the country in such a case to uphold the principles on( ~
Hear./
the Emancipation Act was granted, and to interfere.. lion of
The essential feature of the hierarchy was the intres.l.' ought
the canon law, and as that was so objetionable, ri. . of
ption
to be met by fitting legislation. Then the assn? ht, It
titles was undoubtedly an evasion of the Queen's trltgjes, and
the Pope had, therefore, no right to Warne
was the exclusive right of the Sovereign t., confer
ower of
the Pe. The
conferring titles on British subjects AS he bad indeed,"n' t°
main objection to the Government measure, and, vita
any legis ation at all on this question, was, that nothingainea
to be feared from the acts and spread of Popery -031-s, ie
had changed-and that Popery was not the sum 11°W ally
former ages. But he felt surprised at this assertion,
was perfectly clear that Rome had only not been:lox
due. restraint. . It was said that the
. -mischievous in all ages and places, because eP" fetter
religious liberty. , They whdargned so argued as
.104,11 tans
were the great advocates or. thaeprinciple. , de Werk,bolica
that such views were not the viewi-of Roman '* not
generally. Many larkii-bodieei of Reiniiii Catholies didh he
entertain that view. In the Rambler, a Roman CO ?op,
publication, ho found a statement, which, in his oPlelso
more truly represented the views of Roman Catholics than hi
the statements made by Hon. Members in that nous...l24ler*,
,13;11 :vrould:,
they
of religious liberty
maintained that no man bad a right to bring religie"-- dug
into contact with civil libesty • and he contendol that
ir Cara
good would flow from what had taken place.
were the best defenders who too- that
pwriinucli ple
respectto act
to
tuhpeonmeieneotrhei,sh
ei ndsitdanncoet
that civil liberty was not infringed. He was satisfied iit
The rhs'gtu.
comprehensive. He thought a condemnation of the
Unction of the bull of the Pope ought to have been Ins
ally,
and a declaration prohibiting such an act, under Pe°,7pe'n
fur the future. Believing, however, that the Bill had. .`",:-t
hismsru.pEpo. support.
Mr. introduced in a spirit of sincerity, he was prepared to give
1
ROCHE said, that the HonourablewaSthink Print
e IiGiPU We
.OLi .4
C it
1:eel 315 t 111:
-he(sHheoarul,dhreaatrh.)er,
sHaye hitadwas
wholand bad just jeunstexsaatredpolewnof, hadthe sehraah'eedfeulp
esti:tee ofeteofhiethsetalwe
roti,:7l
religion,
I:haul
tl.
Ctrainthesoloicf
pie of the baneful effect
that was growing up under °leo"
Protestant laws which were supported by Protestant heft-a'
nets. Ireland, instead of being a stigma upon the Welaji
Catholic faith, was a disgrace to Protestants, because,. the
was governed entirely in opposition to the feelings c" '-hae
country. He held this measure to be an infringement of,i-
-.danthae::l;ilif
Emancipation Act. The Act was the charter of Roinan,,,,L'hialt-
tholic liberties, which they were attempting to invade. 1„.6.--
Bill did invade those liberties, and therefore he would opP':,
it. The first clause of this Bill, he asserted broadly. weijo
great an opposition to the endowment of the Rowan C„,tr,°,,,ao
Church as either if the two clauses expunged. This 0,1,• of
a retrograde movement, and going back to the legisie"%oi.,
past ages. During the debates respecting the Catholic ese.t:te
patina, in 1829, the Duke of Wellington stated that la illest
a law was
passed
in Ireland to prohibit any Catholic P•rhe
from assuming • titles ; but it was repealed in 1793 that 3
effect of the Bill was found so intolerant and uttlast worle
was repealed, and up to 1.29 the priests and prelate, tier
tree to assume any titles they pleased. In 18z9 the
~..o,ie doe
lies consented, and he thought very iniproperlY, to erfaa, of
their liberties to a certain extent, and not to assitine "'woe
places belonging to Protestant bishops. .pow the/
That wee
called upon to go back to the legislation of 1793• htto be
legislating upon a principle of which they oak', There
ashamed, in the middle of the nineteenth centug::
e, , are
was another reason fc,r him to oppose the Bill. lufropre-
attempting to impose an Act which they called rt,. ciLoi, it
hensive Act; but as it could not be extended to Are loosilt
was a delusion upon the people at large. If Ge"wreether
eaten 2ed this Bill to Ireland, he asked then' -"attire
they were prepared to carry it tut? Would theLd Jell
to appeal to a Catholic jury? They had that cl,ira
and dissatisfaction enough in Ire and, and bad Ill"
satisfaction was increased by maintaining at War"
upon the statute-book. This Bill would go into that bad
list, and they were therefore ene. uraging ~.t,„ respo°'
spirit of dissatisfaction. Upon them would rest te-.lito it
sibility.- (Hear.) A bull similar to that introduced into t
country had formerly been sent to Sydney, and w.... teen
Protestant bishop complained, Lord Stanley, who walisir of
Colonial Secretary, said he did not consider it anY now 01
the Government. How then could they turn round
refoso
say the bull really interfered with the Quoen'e suP •yed
He did not believe that any man in this country, °lit there
the years of discretion, believed it. He believed thticii, ia
was in this country a puritanical spirit of bigot* Tr" ..a it
many cases, had been got up by Protestant bisbope, I.l;:irich
was bowing to this spirit of intolerance and Wet/10.11
made them now attack this unfortunate Dr. " *-- beer'
. her a
this country.
Now they were going to de snot
.iinitteal
thing,th to extend it to Scotland, where no one
clauselintr-
duece Queen's supremacy. There was to be a ,0„, i 0
Scotland° meet the case of the Episcopalian V;7410 in
were in the same position as Pr. a"., ire-
s 2.
Ireland, and why not meet the case of the'bishop. ~..tiuo.
land.
,m_ If they did not, it would be inonstroue.,ll.olrintrp
They did things in Ireland, which, if done in Os: A on esti.
would make time very hair of their heads to st
them,nyou
That was justice to Ireland. They seid t willace roars
Irish Papists, you shall have nothing. Vire Lod how
chains upon you." He wanted to have that el; toedit°
they exam tad bishops in Scotland and PrePohelie the
the very same thing penal in Ireland. Ile
ex dad _atc'
Bill was introduced by the Noble Lord
913 d Establislm.
MI
Ireland, for the purposs of bolstering up the .
dustice, e
Church in conquest,That Church was based cri l I sa, gots
ht that w said
was a badge ot and he thoug It wee be
other.
rew on for voting against the Bill altog to support t 0
by some people that the Bill was necesnsaarYsiolitar qustio„
Protestant Church in England. In '2'n then said," DOD ,
was mooted, and respectable old gentler" - the P ... rotestans
admit the Catholics, or you will destrnoy
amendment woe
1-
Church altogether." At that tinebuat the Duke of Wev _
proposed similar to the present Bill'e was aware it gave c ;
lington did not support it, and said b
but wos introdu::
security to the Established Church,
the EntanciPsil
the
to plunder those who were opposed to
o posed to
Act. Earl Malmesbury, who hacl been I),,as agreed .re'
der
Emancipation Act, said, now that the'
Act
tclauses of a
ha would not consent to the introduction of
What o securig
qualifying character, as he considered they gwe
to the Church. He (Mr. Roche) had ahown,,niancipation.
opinions of men who had been opposed to the r-,
id never "I's
Act. He believed that the present Bill would
o.s._ in
tair
been introduced but for the spread of Tractariao. 1 A dogS_
country. But the danger of the Pope was t
nt
]abet eang:
which alarmed the Noble Lord
bud which
was ,that o, hem.
from within the Church itself, old which was ,fray' "hi&
13:
he said, to the very brink of the precipice. , if whal...t
heard a great deal of the Rev. Mr.
westßennetL
;aid they Ill'-to
wished to speak with great respect.
It
e here not °theta
screw him down to the rubric,. but were t
, But he Ns°l,o
they must scew up to it? - (Hear, hear./ ct that in ti'
bleu
Chu the attention of the Noble Lord to the fa ,
rib el Royal, TriehiAt
Chapel Royal, St. James's, and the ‘-'"el)- the way in V",.11-
College, Dublin, the rubric was violated by
.-, member t'''-''
the c mmunio.i table was placed. The Lion. royer!
read extracts from " Stevens's Bo• k n bri°
rf Cornmo . e
_0
many cases the 'gale
for the purpose of showing that in is a not one ,„00
was either omitted or altered. They ua- f the °i oat
edition of their prayer book which was not full o .
__ els
glaring inaccuracies. Now, he had shown t,13:,70.b 0 ess
there was a prayer book patronised by his Royal "bribep!,
Prince Albert, by three archbishops and by firteell_i"Royttl.
in which it was stated, that neither in the Chan"
_t Da
St. James's, nor in the Chapel Royal, Trinity College ,0 be
lin, could the communion be administered according..;t 00e
cubic or the statute law; and that, in fact, there Wasf,,soiee.
edition of their Prayer book that was not full of hisinaerf' Dill.
He warned the Noble Lord against proceeding with 4 Witk
If Ministers persevered, they must be prepared to nie'onio a
every opposition in Ireland.- (Hear, hear.). Tbe rA rwit.b.
Ireland would not permit their religion to be interfere:with'
For centuries they had been true to their religion, !!,11. one
standing persecution, and they would be true to it sti.u_ir rot,
of the greatest blessings the people possessed was tn!,. With
gion-it was very dear to them, and anyinterfereneeho is
that religion was not only disgraceful to thernaelves'• Hear,
stigma and a disgrace in the eyes of the world.- themselves,( Hear,
hear.) They would be slaves, and worse than slaves, if to
submitted to such laws. He (Mr. Roche) had no des,. oro•
increase the irritation which the proposed measure 135'04/12
duced in Ireland; but he warned Ministers that the c opt
they were taking was the way to,create rebellioaa D2l;
country-(Hear, hear)-and he feared ii they Perlis

su,
thi
roi
Ca
sis•
411
. OU
Inc

(. ,
• • tie
' Nva
!lc
• do,
ha'
DI(
for

Ca
tot

\viu
bis
Oul
.1110
sys
11a,
or
rat
Re
vva

a n
ep
the

it

~.--= -

. ~,

.
,

I '

I

,^

~1

Any Inea-
he ecul‘c
tend equal
'0 ay that
h
eed ea
I power is
he WO'
; perfectly
s, ind on
s the only
a, er the

following

ull consti-
L would b$
3 Special
e real and
tended
witth
o
iKtible
nal. But,
expedient
holic niust
'We unier

i, might lead to results which they might have to deplore.
The Bill was nothing but a decoction of the existing Pro-
testant intolerance in this country, and if they persisted in
Passing it, it would be looked upon as a declaration of war
by the people of Ireland.—(Hear.)
Mr. SEYMOUR wished to state why he had come to the
determination of voting against the Government on this
question. He was aware of the almost superhuman efforts
Of the Roman Ca holies to sp tad their religion, not only in
this country but throughout Europe. He drew some conso-
lation from that fact, because he did not think any adequate
means had yet been taken to resist them. The present crisis
bad not come upon him unexpectedly, for he had been told by
some Roman Catholic friends ten years ago that meetings
had been held in the pri- cipal cities of Europe for the con
version of this country, and for the establishment of some
such system as that which it was now attempted to begin in
this country. He was aware that in many quarters in Eu-
rope there had been a regular crusade of one class of Roman
Catholics against Protestants. That class, he believed. con-
sisted of those Roman Catholics who were in favour of civil
and religious tyranny, end he believed, if they were victori-
ous, they mould turn their arms against the Whig
party in the English Church. He should admi ,
indeed, that having seen a good, deal of that party
in various portions of Europe, there were amongst
them many who would be as unscrupulous in their means—
sitnd as despotic in the exercise of their spiritual power, as
/bey were in the reign of Philip 11., the time of the Jesuits,
or when the latter established themselves in Paraguay.—
(,Hear, hear.) But what was it the House now proposal to
do? What was the course it intended pursuing, or what
_ was the exigency to be met ? He did not agree with the
Act before them, because it did that which it ought not to
do, and it left other matters untouched to which it ought to
have attended.—(" Hear, hear," from the Roman Catholic
Members.) He maintained that a bishop was not a terri-
torial title ; it was merely an oflice, as old as the Roman
Catholic religion itself. The present question was one
totally distinct and different from monastic establishments.
(Hear, hear.) He therefore thought it would be a
'violation of civil and religious liberty to interfere with those
bishops, but at the same time considered that measures
ought to be taken to inquire into the management of those
• monastic establishments. Everybody should deplore that
system which for the last 200 years existed on the continent,
under which a young female was either compelled to marry
or take the veil, and through the means of which the higher
ranks of seciety had become so debased and disorganised.
Re would not have trespassed at all on the House, but he
Was anxious briefly to state the reasons which induced him
to vote against those with whom he generally acted, and in
a manner which might endanger his seat for the borough he
epresented.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said he was glad he had given way to
• the Hon. Gentleman who had just addressed them, as he was
sure that Hon. Member had shown that in any future vote
which he might give he would be influenced by the best
and most honourable motives. In much of what had fallen
~' . from the Hon. Gentleman he (Mr. Goulburn) concurred;
• • '" " but he should differ from him in the vote which he gave
t • . upon that occasion.—(Hear.) He thought the statement
• that there was a general crusade gotten up to advance the
I: , e interests of the Roman Catholic religion was not a very
,•,' • • strong argument in favour of not passing a measure to arrest
~ ' sand put some restraint upon the temporal power claimed
1 u "by the Pope in this country.- (Hear, hear.) The Hon.
' - ‘Zolielier for Cork (Mr. Roche) had talked a good deal about
~ ' nenewing the university privilege of printing the Book of
t•onainon Prayer; but as it was, he (Mr Goulburn) found it
•ps`rfectly impossible to connect the greater part of the Hon.
Meeaber's speech with the subject immediately under discus-
; • airan_(Hear, hear.) He would not therefore endeavour to
f• ollow that Yon. Member, but would merely briefly state
•• the grown.% why he could not agree with the Hon. Member
.'" 111 opposing the Bill then before the House. It was said the
. Proposed Bill ,arcs an invasion of the Act of 1829. With
it that allegation he' could not concur. If he regarded the pre-
'• . -Bent Bill as an inva ,ion of that Act he would not give it his
t ' Upport.—(Hear, hea.r.) He had been a party to the form-
':: sag of that compact ;ietween the Roman Catholic body
11 and the people of this Caintry, and he would neither de-
',, 'Part from its provisions, ntir consent to its spirit being vio-
• lated--(Hear, hear)—but he contended for it that• that was
' ' tao violation of that compact on the part of those who sup-
'i,, -. Parted the provisions of that Bill.- (Hear, hear.) The
threats of the Hon. Member for Cork, he conceived, were
alal, justified, for it was not pretended now to increase the
' . '' number of Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland, nor were
there any titles there prohibited which were not so under
the Act of 1829. The Honourable Gentleman, therefore,
.` ••• was not acting fairly towards his Roman Catholic fellow-
'', ,'' countrymen if he assumed that they would not support
Is, . their compact of 1819.—(Hear, hear.) The act of the
ci
. ''Pope, he contended for it, was an aggressive act. The
'tt -40inan Catholic Church endeavoured to extend its doc-
• trines by teaching; the Church of England did the same.
Vor his own part he had no objection to the contest, and no
a., feare-for the result—no dread of any aggression, as long as
ss
I:,i' they had a sufficiency of such teachers as they had for their
s - 49p10,-,(Hear„ hear.) But he held the apt of the Pope to
t'i''' the°o,;iin act of civil aggression.. It- invAded the authority of
':! -.. Cr-oWtihy the appointment c f civil, itles, and it was an
," ""bteinpt to invade the Protestant privileges of the country at
k ' the same time. It was on these grounds- that he objected
t,..' 14) the act ot the Pope.—(Hear, hear.) If it had been found
. that the ecclesiastical arrangements made in this country
' Were insufficient for the management of their affairs, a
timely might have bee a found without intrsducing a civil
Power to disturb the peace of the country and interfere with
Its civil government.—(Hear, hear.) When was there a
Period during which :a greater disposition had been shown
,than during the past year, on the part of that House and
t • the country, to give the Roman Catholics every possible
,-: privilege, and withdraw all disabilities inflicted by former
• ittvel—and the only reward which they received for all that
!eoasideration was an invasion of the authority of the Crown,
'and an infringement of the Constitution. The appointment
' ' ltt those bishops was not necessary to the exercise of the re-
ligion of the Roman Catholics. If it were so, he for one
rieuld be ready to make great sacrifices to give them the full
! S tiered
of episcopal superintendence.—( Hear.) He remem-
i' for 20 years hearing every possible narrative of Roman
L. Catholic grievances laid before that House up to the year
'' 1829 ; but though every possible grievance which could be
's.mated as existing in this or any other country had been
'•. *gated, not a syllable had ever been uttered alleging that the
" ‘ . Nicars-apostolic of England were not amply sufficient for
1., Avery religious . want which they then had.—(Hear.) He
.„ t, remembered even a rescript from the Pope at the time they
::' :were discussing, about the year 1812 or 1813, how emanci-
-4 .ilkation might be safely granted, having issued. in which,
t", ...though affirming the s stem of bishops in Ireland, there was
t., !- Previoion made only for the appointment of vicars-apostolic
',' la this country. If therefore that measure had been unpro-
volced..-jf it bad been unnecessary for the establishment of
the Roman Catholic religion, why had it been introduced?
t Was asked, where was the evil in exchanging vicariates-
,
4Postolic for dioceses? It might be quite immaterial indeed
,
'.th the Roman Catholics, but it was most material indeed to
the Protestant community.—(Hear, hear.) The vicars-apos-
'he; indeed, had jurisdiction, as his Hon. and Learned Friend
the • Member for Plvmoth had told them, over personas omnes
'---;‘ that was all pergolas of their own persuasion. But would
''' be contended that the regular bishops would not exercise
tower over those who were not Roman Catholics? The
, • I °Pe, indeed, had told them in his bull that he had proceeded
' ° appoint - non sine magna viscerum commotione, indeed—
, ,
‘ltilirs of the Church; but they would be found interfering in
Viewer
matters also. It had been said that the Pope had no
v°wer to enforce the canon law in this country; but the
• '' ,701,c0n law might still have its effect without the interference
the civil power, as in the case, for instance, of excommu-
,bleation. Was it not possible to make such a sentence a
• means of annoyance, and inconvenience, and injury to those
Whom it had been applied ?- (Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member for Plymouth said if it was proposed to excommu-
• . ,„"teate the Queen, that he would at once interfere ; but the
l . ftioiple of the case was the same if the lowest subject in
a..' ~, c! realm were subjected to such a proceeding. This ap-
rintment of bishops, therefore, gave them a province over
• - ilither rsons in their diocese than Roman Catholics ; and as
'..e' was,not prepared to submit to the consequences of such
;•,41 aitercise. The Gentleman who preceded him stated ob-
. tetions to some parts of the Bill; these objections, however,
raid be better discussed in Committee. But with respect
to manner in which that aggression had been met, he
• 21r. Goulburn) confessed he did not approve of the whole
4 s7lrse of proceeding which had taken place. He thought that
•
Tore moderation on the part of the Government, and a less
' . ilePosition to aggravate the feelings of the country, would
, titya led to a more calm and deliberate discussion than
• i'itll been the consequence of the course pursued - (Hear,
4 : 111'40—and he could not help considering that
t. ._e discrepancy between the Act introduced, and the
, •
iLaeiteinent caused by the Government would I e likely to
prejudicial results.—(Hear, hear.) What was
the course left for them to pursue? Were they to reject
Zat Bill or to adopt it? If they rejected it, what better
. -1; eacs had they a prospect of of resisting the aggression, or
~,
Making a specific declaration that the act of the Pope was
_.
. , 7 . which they should remonstrate against? --(Hear, hear.)
hey should persevere. But he might if he pleased recall the
1 I 4:111t ; . and he trusted, when the Roman Catholic feeling of
e country was consulted, it would be found advisable to do
ll°. There was no necessity to look fur precedents for such a
I nceeding. He recollected an instance of a bishop to v., hem
.s_l'4lll Monarch objected being charged by the Pope. And it
is Zao only the other day that they saw the bishop appointed
' Goa withdrawn and the vicar-apostolic re-appointed.
t,., , Ite therefore. again f
9 said, "Withdraw your bull; restore
, • le .vicars-apostolic, and then all the restriction of
'‘,l. 1 is Bill become unnecessary,"- (Hear,_ hear.) They
:"I,Nvers told the proposed measure was adverse to civil
:herty, and that it was a persecution of the Roman
• -,Vatholies. The Honourable Member for Cork had told them
:,
.. tot to sanction the appointment of vicars-apostolic instead of
• Jahops. He had talked a great deal about toleration and
-
rarity, and yet he would sweep away the entire Irish Church
bishops, and all as a proof of his moderate and liberal opi-
NOns.- (Hear, hear.) A distinguished lady had said, " Oh,
' • lituerty I under thy name many crimes are committed?" And
. , ' • 'was much the same way, he believed, with what was
tatted
religious as with civil liberty. In Ireland certain sees
pare established in different districts, and bishops appointed ;
.
• tilit the law told them they should not assume the titles of
)Tensions, and the present Bill was no more an act of op-
. than the Act of 1829. But there was a sort of
audacious
besides that of legislation. It was that which an
, ...s.`.',acious insolent priest inflicted upon a man of pious and
7.taltset demeanour, and who would submit to any injury and
'lett rather than make any complaint which would lead to
tposure. Against such a man they often saw, in private
jial. injuries inflicted which would bear the name of tyranny
re& We should not, however, allow the Pope to go on
bro/tching on our kind feelings towards the Roman Catholic
ljtion: He held the act of the Pope to be an encroachment
s ri the sovereign power of the Queen, the Protestant ,
feel-
aaf the cuntry, and the Established Church and tre-
" 47° he would vote in favour of the present Bill, which went
• eet it.—(Hear, hear.) -
t,fir 11. W. 13ARRON expressed his appreheusion-that all
114_4_,t six weeks' distracting discussion on the Papal bull
14qq.itist as little tended to useful legislation on the question
Bliss Edgworth's Essay on Irish Bulls" had tended to
( improvee the breed of cattle in the county of Galway.—
' of "Miter.) On the contrary, it had done an immense deal
tolciachief. It had raised up all the dormant embers of
Am igions discord in this country and in Ireland; it had torn
,under ties, and ripped up old sores ; it had set man against 1
17, where religious fuds had been settled down, though i
tit quite extinguished,e when men were beginning to think
• eae„ , !natters laid on the tomb for ever, and that never
eh
0t,"411,Ld be Beet: in our days a revival of the old disputes
ake'" Catholic question, or that that House should be made
~....f arena of ecclesiastical censures or intolerant accusations.
(Rear, hear.) What kind of a church was it they had, if
ii_tY feared the appointment of a single archbishop would
. billet it? Oh 1 but the effect of the Pope's act would
ato dethrone the Queen, to annihilate the Established
• tie,tir°l, and take possession of all ecclesiastical temporali-
tri h it. was truly absurd to send forth Ouch stories for the
, e telling of old women as the renewal of Smithfield and
zia Bartholomew as the consequences of Dr.
Petutment in this country. Now, when they talked of
tee thin
ViriSeMan's
Die Inge, did they think that all the horrors were oil the
bid ,„side?—(" Hear," from the Roman Catholic Members.)
. test head
wish to rake up the horrors of Henry VIII., the
ll.teact of their Church?—(Hear.) Did they wish to rake
he horrors perpetrated by John Knox in Scotland, or
Is murders and buntings of Cromwell in Ireland?

THE

—(Hear, hear.) Did they wish their representatives to tell
the Irish people that such were the Protestants of the pre-
sent day, and that they were fit prototypes of Henry VIII.,
John Knox, and Cromwell?—(Hear.) There were two sides
to all those cases of persecution—put them down not to the
score of Catholic or Protestant, but to that of corrupt human
nature. But it had been said that the appointment o a
Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country was an insult to
the British people. For his part, however, he could nottm-
derstand how thot act could be regarded as an insult oe7an
aggression ; and he certainly felt convinced that it had never
been meant for such a purpose. Within the last few years a
Roman Catholic bishop had been appointed in Ireland with-

out any offence to the Protestant party throughout the
emeire ; and surely an act which was perfectly harmless in
Ireland afforded no just ground for public indignation in
England. Why, the Protestant party in this country ought,
consistently with their own 11:tred of Papal ascendancy, to
approve of an act which raised the Roman Catholic vicars-
apostolic into bishops, and by that means reticle ed
them less dependent on the Pope. The Honourable
Gentleman the Member for the Univesity of Cambridge
(Mr. Goulburn), had talked that evening of the debasement
and misery which the profession of the Roman Catholic
religion produced amome nations. Now, in reply to that
aspersion, he (Sir W. Barron) would confidently point' to
the history of the glories of Italy and the imperishable
monuments of the genius of her childre ~ lie
would point to the great men who had contri-
buted to raise France to her high pitch of prosperity and
civilization. lie would point, to , to the distinguished
men who had illustrated the annals of England herself in
former ages. The Act then under their consideration was a
paltry, contemptible measure, good for nothing but insul .
If it were passed into law its effects in Ireland would be
peculiarly disastrous. There would be. no civil war in con-
sequence in that country, but there would be distrust and
hatred of English legislation. He would tell them that it
would be an impotent law, and worse than impotent- it
would be a disgrace to their statute•book. It would be an
insult to the Church of the Irish people, and upon that point
they were far more tenacious tha❑ they were of their lives
or properties. It would do her Majesty's Ministers no good,
but would inflict a stain on their name and throw difficulties
in the way of their party which centuries would not re
move. He implored of them, therefore, to pause before they
determined on persevering with so pernicious and insulting
a measure.

Mr. CALVERT (the new Member for Aylesbury) said
that he had never entered upon the consideration of any sub-

ject which was, to his view, more pregnant with the most
important consequences to all the great interests of the
country than the measure now under discussion. The sup-
porters of the Bill were told that they were guilty of perse-
cution and of retrograde conduct with reference to the
Emancipation Act of 1829. Now, so far as persecution was
concerned, no man could feel a deeper interest than he did
in the welfare and progress of Ireland, and his feeling with
regard to the Roman Catholics of England was that no body
of persons were more loyal, or more deserved the attention
and consideration of the Legislature. It was with a
sincere anxiety, therefore, to do justice to the Roman
Catholics on both sides of the channel that he n:w
approached this subject. The Act of 1829 was simply for
the purpose of establishing civil privileges. It was t -
tally unconnected with the subject under discussion; and,
with the exception of one particular clause, there was not,
from the commencement to the conclusion of it, any refer-
ence to matters of a spiritual character, and by that clause a
penalty was laid upon those Roman Catholic bishops who
took the titles of then existing sees. It was said, however,
that this did not prevent the assumption of titles of sees de-
rived from other places; but, up to the last four yeare, the
parties who took such titles under a Papal brief were guilty
of treason. Since that period the penalty had been taken
away, but the offence remained. When the opponents of the
Bill spoke of persecution, let him ask who were the parties
who had compelled the Government to enter upon this course
of legislation? In the first place, he found a person comiug
to this country with authority from a foreign power, assert-
ing a spiritual jurisdiction over him (Mr. Calvert.)—(Cries
of " Hear," and " No," from several Irish 'Members). He
could prove to them " yes"— a spiritual jurisdiction over him.
—(Cheers.) There was a man setting up a cardinal's throne
in the neighbourhood of Lambeth, under the authority of a
foreign potentate, and because he (Mr. Calvert) resisted the
act, was he to be told that he was guilty of persecution ? Why,
the charge was absurd, and inconsistent with the meaning of
the language— and he contended that hs was then standing in
a position of self-defence, and was not amenable to any such
charge. The question before the House was, whether or not
it was exped ent that the present Bill should be read a
second time? For 150 years, from 1710 to this time, the
question had been decided in one uniform manner by the
Legislature, every Act, beginning with the Fth of Anne,
chap. 8, sec. 10, having uniformly adopted a phrase which
drew a distinction between the authority Gf a Ro-
man Catholic over a congregation, and his authority
over a place. The questson might also be viewed with
reference to the general law of Europe; for, throughout
the whole of Europe, wherever Roman Catholic bishops
had been admitted at all , they had always been subject to
some contr A—by placet or e.zequatur —which p-erented
them from exercising the same authority that they hid
Rome. The most important effect of the recent act of ng-
gression by the Pope would be the introduction of the
canon law. T, introduce that, they were told there must
be a regular series of archbishops and bishops in the
country, the 'act being that unless there were arch-
bishops and bishops to introduce and give effect to it, that
law could not take practical effect. Let the House see the
result ( f that. Take the establishment of the new col-
leges in Ireland as an example. Suppose the Pope issued a
brief condemning these colleges, and no episcopate existed in
Ireland, it would then be a mere matter of conscience with
every Roman Catholic to decide whether he would obey the
brief or not; but if an episcopate were established, then, by
virtue of the canon law, every individual Roman Catholic in
the country must bend before the brief. Not a man could
resist it. Liberty would be put an end to, and all must bow
to the decision of the Pope. There had been much debating
upon the subject of the Bill ; but had any Roman Catholic
Member yet pointed out a single spiritual want of the Raman
Catholics which was not satisfied under the institution of
vicars apostolic? He (Mr. Calvert) did not want to deprive
the Roman Catholics of a single spiritual benefit; but he
must say he believed the vicars apostolic wore able to supply
all the spiritual wants of that community in this country.
The Hon. Member then remarked upon the insulting charac-
ter of the act el' the Pope in issuing his brief without first
consulting the wishes of the country and the Government,
and in using the term " Catholic England" in his brief;
when he knew that it was not " Catholic" but " Protestant'

England ; for if it were "Catholic England," why were not the
S taarts upon the throne ? (Cheers.) In point of fact the Pope
in using that phrase was conveying an intimation that the
present Sovereign ought not to be upon the throne. Anot` er
reason why the present Bill was necessary was, the constant
tendency of Rome to encroach up in the authority of the
Crown, as might be seen on reference to Belgian', Sardinia,
and other continental states. In the course of this debate
it had been asserted that the Roman Cath .lie bishops were
appointed in this country because they had been appointed
in Ireland. Thus encroachment followed encroachment, and
the only thing they gained by making a concession was
that that concession was deelared to be a right, and
the right was then taken as the groundwork for further
encroachment. His Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr.
Roundell Palmer) had referred to the Protestant Dissenting
communities, and said that if they were allowed
free action it must also be ailowad to the Roman Catholics.
But let the House observe the difference. In the first place,
there was no persuasion or body of persons in this country
who, by any religious arrangement, questioned in any way
the order or establishment of bishops, and no one in which
the temporal power had not great weight over the
spiritual. (Cheers.) That was a most material matter. Let
the conferences or assemblies of any of them be examined,
and it would always be found that the temporal was above
the spiritual ; whereas the essence of the system of the Roman
Catholic Church was, that the temporal should not exist
except in obedience to the spiritual ; and in his (Mr. Cal-
yen's) opinion nothing should induce us to consent that the
temporal power should be subject altogether to the spiritual.
—(Hear, hear.) In point of fact, the Pope of Rome was
the supreme head of a vast army of bishops and priests
scattered all over Europe, who must therefore be regarded
with jealousy, and it should be remembered that every mem-
ber of the Methodist Conference, or of an assembly of Non-
conformist divinea was an Englishman, and that whatever
else ea. that object could not be for the ad-
vantagerailger.—(Hear, hear,) How was it with
migh
atfbtehe his
st(ib
regard to the Pope ? He was no: only Pepe of
Rome, but there might be other foreign powers
who him.— (Hear, hear.) At this
me n
French v ohaedr
possession of Rome, and he (Mr.
Calvert) did not believe that they entertained sinister feel-
ings towards this country; but he could easily imagine ano-
e hadt
t the influence
the, great continental power, which having possession of the
Popedom, and with a bold and scrupulous minister, who en-
tertained hostile views towards the Constitution and the
power of England, might use that influence for the purpose
of inflicting immense damage upon us, and embarrassing an
authority which it knew would be ever used for the purpose
of promoting constitutional government. It had been stated
that the present Bill was, after all, a small measure, and he
thought it was so; but he did not think that, therefore, it
was a measure whiab. ought not to be passed. It might be
necessary, however, to naa.; recourse to further legislation:
but even if that were so, he should not he sorry that they had
thus afforded a locus penittntice, and given Vat: Vope an op-
portunity to withdraw his brief, retrace his steps, and avoid
the enormous evils which his conduct was calculated to pro-
duce.—(Cheers.)
Mr. CHARTER'S said he had been much struck with the
strange logic of the supporters of the Bill, and the inconsis-
tency between their arguments and their votes. They said,
" We give our votes upon the ground of civil and religious
liberty. We vote for complete toleration; and because we
dread the establishment of a hierarchy in this country, and
the ntroduction of the canon law, we vote for a Bill which
touches not one of these points." Therefore, he was at a
loss to understand how they could reconcile their
speeches with their votes. From all that had occurred,
both within and without the walls of Parliament, it
appeared that the act of the Popo had been re-
garded solely in the light of a temporal aggression
It was considered to be not an act for tha better internal
government of the Roman Catholic communion in this
country, but an assumption of temporal power by the Sove-
reign of the Roman States. That was the view taken by
her Majesty in the Speech from the Throne. by the Noble
Lord in introducing the Bill, and by the Right Hon. Baronet
in proposing the amended Bill, and they stated that there
being no redress afforded by the statute law, they had come
to Parliament for further powers. But if it were true
that an insult had been offered to the Sovereign of the
realist, it was not to Parliament that they should have had
recourse for "ear_iress, but to the public law of Europe.
The Hon. and Learneal Member for Oxford (Mr. P. Wood)
had maintained that the sovereignty of the realm had been
violated by this so-called Papal aggTssion. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Plymouth (Fr. R. palmer), in every
word of whose able speech he (Mr. Charteris) fag
reed,
was y
was of opinion that the right in the matter was dependent
not upon the Sovereign of the State, but on certain condi-
Ow previously agreed upon—upon a concordat, for the es-
tablishment or partial establishment m f the Roman Ca-
tholic Church in the State. Thus it appeared doctors dif-
fered. Dr. Twiss stated there was no position in law so
completely established with reference to the relations be-
tween-the Pope and the Sovereigns of other States, as that
the Jioyal placet or excquatur of the Crown was previously
necessary to the appointment of bishoprics in a country.
That opinion was corroborated by the proceedings before
the Committee of lsls, where it was stated, by a German
jurist, that the Royal placti was previously necessary. pie
(Mr. Charteris) was inclined to concur in that opinion.
He thought it would be found that that right had teen
exarcised by Sovereign Princes before and since the Re_
formation, and, if that were so, it was not to the 'louse of
Commons, but to the Foreign-office, they should look for
redress. But it was bar them to consider whether it was
not their own fault that they were now discussing
this question—whether that spirit Of intolerance which at-
tributed the famine in Ireland and the. cholera to their
ti.aving whitewashed the walls of Maynootil, was not at the
hOttossa : for he felt confident that had there
been an English Minister at ',tome they would not now be
discussing this que,t' not, however, bring
15 ma.
himself to view the matter in the light of floral aggres-
The
sion, He considered it purely a ministerial question. .
episcopal appointments by the Pope ho regarded MarelY

SUN,

an arrangement for the better organization of the Roman
I Catholic Church in this country, anal as such they should not
deal with it, if they meant to preserve religious liberty and
toleration. What right had they to deny to the Roman
Catholics that organization for their Church government ac-
cording to laws of their own communion, which they granted
to every other religious community ? Was not epis-
copacy a part of ecclesiastical government ? Nay, was
not the episcopacy of the Church of England derived
from them ? The reason assigned was, the danger
that might ensue from the establishment of a Ro-
man Catholic hierarchy. Re saw no danger on the
subject. If the canon law came into collision with the law
of the laud, the canon law must bow before it. If they
found the canon law made superior to the civil and statute
law, then let them interfere by legislation and vindicate the
supremacy of the law, and he would give them his support.
The Roman Catholics of this country themselves denied the
temporal supremacy of the Pope, an I they swore in their
oath at that table that the Pope neither had nor ought to
have any civil jurisdiction within these realms, and further,
that they would not disturb the settlement of property as
established by law within the realm, and that they swore
in the terms of the oath, without mental reservation or equi-
vocation. Why then should they impugn the loyalty of the
Roman Catholics? He was indignant when he heard their
loyalty questioned. They had proved' their loyalty in a
hundred fights by flood and field, and in every clime. To
whom was the suppression of the Irish rebellion 'tie but to
the priests and to the police. The Roman Catholics were
as loyal to the Constitution and the Crown as the Pro-
testants, and he believed there Was in the Roman Catho-

lic Anglo-Saxons, as wall as in the Protestants, the same
spirit of independence which would not suffer them to
bow down to any foreign potentate. He was opposed to
all legislation, because he believed their civil rights and
-liberties were in no danger. He looked not to penal enact-
ments, but, to the spread of education and enlighten-
ment and the exertions of their clergy for the pre-
servation of their faith. A distinguished statesman (Mr.
Wyndham) had said that if conversion to Popery was au
evil, the law was not the proper remedy, and that prosely-
tism was a disgrace only to the clergymen in whose parish
it occurred. When lion. Gentlemen threatened them with
the chance of another Spanish Armada or French invasion,
he asked was not the period of the Armada one when the
bloody penal code disgraced the statute-book, when the
scaffold reeked with blood; And when the French invader
last trod the soil of this realm, was not the same penal code
still in force? They had little encouragement, then, in the
past to have recourse to penal enactments. They ought not,
however, to pass by the arrogant tone of the Popish brief;
they should pass a resolution marking their disapprobation
of it, but they ought at the same time to do away with the
absurdity of ignoring the Pope as a temporal Sovereign;
they should establish diplomatic relations with his court;
they should reverse the statutes of mortmain, and guard
against abuses by passing measures for the inspection of
monasteries. This would be better than passing an Act
which would be a dead letter in operation. Although the
feeling of the country was aroused on the subject he was
certain the people would soon be convinced of the impolicy
of encumbering the statute-book with inoperative laws. For
if they would make their legislation effective, they must re-
enact the penal laws, but in that case they must interfere
with the free exercise of their religion by the Roman Ca-
tholics, and thus violate the sound principles of religious
toleration.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the pith and substance
of the arguments advanced by those who took what he
would ca'l the Roman Catholic view of the question was
this :—that the establishment of a hierarchy was essential to
eir religion— that therefore they wore entitled to have it
—that they could obtain it only from the Roman Pontiff—
that therefore they were justified in having recourse to the
Pope to obtain it—and that the Pope was entitled to grant
it, and do all that was necessary for the purpose of establish-
ing it. From those premises the Roman Catholics drew an
egregious fallacy ; but before proceeding to deal with that
he would state the substance of the arguments used by mem-
bers of the Protestant communion, who were opposed to
legislation on this subject. The substance of their argu-
ment was this :—that the Legislature had conceded to the
Roman Catholics the free and unfettered exercise of their re-.

ligion—that the establishment of a hierarchy was essentia
to the free and unlettered exercise of their religion—and that
therefore we were bound to permit the establishment of their
hierarchy. Was it passible for any one to reflect for a
moment, and not see the fallacy which pervaded that ar-
gument? It did not follow that, because the thing desired
might be reasonable and just, the means taken to accomplish
it must necessarily be valid. He would assume, for the pur-
pose of argument (and he pledged himself to give battle to
all the arguments which had been advanced by the opponents
of the Bill, and he believed he would be able to defeat
them), that an organized hierarchy was essential to
the interests of the Roman Catholic religion, and that the
see of Rome was the only quarter whence it could be
obtained ; but if the means adopted to establish the hierarchy
were illegal and unconstitutional if they ; involved a
yiolatiorf of eour :municipal and constitutional ...laws
if they were a violation, of the nubile law of Europe —if they
were an invasion of the sovereignty of the state—if they
were an outrage of the national independence—was it to be
said that the Government and Parliament of the country,
whose bounden duty it was to preserve the sovereignty of
these realms inviolate, to protect the national independence
and maintain the national honour untarnished, were to sub-
mit to the adoption of those means because some persons
thought the Roman Catholic Church would be better go-
verned by archbishops and b shops than by vicars-apostolic?
He for ene would never concede so monstrous and intenable
a proposition.—(Hear, hear.) He wanted an answer to this
question, had the Roman Pontiff, in partitioning the realm
of England into provinces and dioceses, and establishing
therein archbishops and bishops, and an organized hierarchy
for the government thereof, invaded the prerogative of the
Crown and outraged the independence of the country,
and had those subjects of her Majesty who had lent them-
elves to carrying out this scheme, stood by it, and abetted
it, departed from the undivided allegiance which they owed
their Sovereign, violated the law of the land, and infringed
the spirit of the Constitution ?—(No, no, and hear,
hear.) He hoped that' Honourable Members would be kind
enough to listen to his arguments instead of interrupting
him with unseemly jeers. There had been abundance of de-
clamation and invective, the promoters of the Bill had been
reproached with intolerance and persecution, and, indeed, if
it had been the object of the measure to re-enact the penal
laws, and suppress the Roman Catholic religion altogether,
it could not have been more vehemently condemned ; but he
now called upon the opponents of the Bill to meet him fairly
in argument, and he respectfully though fearlessly challenged
an answer to the question —were' the proceedings of the iiee
of Rome, and of those who abetted him, consistent with the
law of this country, and with the law of nations? There was
another question he would ask—when the Roman Catholic
religion was the established religi n of this country, and
when, therefore, the people owed, and paid obedience to the
Pope of Rome, in spiritual matters, as the head of their
hurch,would the Pope then have taken on himself to do as he
had now done? To that question he would himself answer in
the most unhesitating and unqualified manner " no ;" and no
man would be bold enough to stand up in the House or else-
where, and assert the affirmative. From the earliest periods
of our his ory the Pope had never exercised jurisdiction in this
country with respect to the appointment of bishops. In the
time of the Saxons the power of dividing the country into
dioceses was vested exclusively in the King. Edward the
Confessor, finding the two bishops existing in his reign in-
sufficient' for the spiritual wants of :he people, created three
more, without the authority of the Pope. This was the
course always pursued in the earlier part of our history, nor
was it until the time of Henry I. that the slightest attempt
was made on the part of the see of Rome to encroach on the
power of the English Crown with respect to the appoint-
ment of Bishops. They were elected by the clergy and con-
firmed by the Crown. An able pamphlet, written by Mr.
Edward James, of the Chancery bar, pointed out very clearly
the course of legislation which had been adopted for the ex-
press purpose of resisting the pretensions -advanced by the
Pope, from time to time. to interfere with the prerogative
of the Crown in this country. LHere the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman read an extract from the pamphlet in question.]
The state of things to which he had referred was not
peculiar to England alone. On the contrary, the practice
in every Roman Catholic country in Europe before the Re-
formation, and it had continued almost down to the pre-
sent moment, was that no bishop could be appointed
except by the Sovereign or by the Pope with the assent
and concurrence of the Sovereign.—(Hear, hear.) It was
incontestably established by the evidence given before
the Committee which sat in 1816 that the most pre-
eminently Roman Catholic countries in Europe, Austria,
Spain, and France, would not permit the hulls of the Pope
to circulate until they had received the sanction of the Go-
vernments of those countries. It was the same in England
when the Roman Catholic religion was established here, and
in the reign of Edward I. a man was sentenced to death
for introducing a Papal bull into England, and the sentence
was remitted only at the entreaty of the Chancellor and
eTsrteaauslui
sr
he
end It th e a pppoei ahr et dt
ht
ao t h
the
m ,
st he
ee t t
Rh tmhe eh ha
da dh
oclearly
estaclished the point, that the see of Rome had no right
to create dioceses in England without the consent of the
State; and if the Pope had not that power, when the Ro-
man Catholic religion was the religion of the country,
whence did he derive the power of doing so now? The
argument of the Roman Catholics respecting the inter-
ference of temporal sovereigns in the appointment of arch-
bishops and bishops was that the only reason why the rati-
fication of the Sovereign could be thought necessary was
this, that in Roman Catholic times and In Roman Catho-
lic countries bishops and archbishops possessed great tem-
poralities, and exercised power, authority, and jurisdic-
tion. He clearly saw the distinction, and he agreed with
those who held that a bishop might be appointed for purely
spiritual purposes, for consecration, for ordination, for con-
firmation, for administering the sacraments of the church;
and, if the Papal rescript had been confined to objects
of purely spiritual jurisdiction, he should be obliged
to admit that there was something in the argument;
but there was nothing whatever in it, there was nothing
which male the proceeding of the Pope in this case at all
analogous to what had been done with regard to sending a
Protestant bishop to Jerusalem, there to exercise spiritual
jurisdiction over the subjects of her Majesty, or other Pro-
testants resi ling in that city. The Protestant bishop at
Jerusalem was there without a see, without a diocese, and
would any one tell him that the Pope and the Roman Ca-
tholic clergy and laity meant no more than that with refe-
rence to this country ? Did they not, on the contrary, find
that the Roman Catholics sought to establish a hierarchy in
this realm of England with a view to temporal sovereignty?
—(No, no.) When he turned to the rescript of the Pope
on this point he found, from the authorized translation of
that document issued by Cardinal Wiseman himself that the
Pope directed the erection of two sees to be presided over by
Dr. Wiseman, and those were Westminster and Southwark ;
that of the northern district, there was to be one see at Hex-
ham ; that for the see of York, he provided that the seat of
the bishop should be at the city of Beverley; that of two
others, one should be at the city of Salford, arid the other at
the city of Northampton. By what authority did the Pope
erect cities within the United Kingdom ? Was not that an act
of territorial sovereignty ? If any town or place was appointed
to be an episcopal see it became ipso facto a city, All towns
were raised to the rank of cities by becoming the seats of
bishops—did any one deny that ?—(Hear, hear.) They would
find that every city derived its rank from being now or
having been in times past the seat of a bishop, and so in-
herent was this privilece or distinction that, though the
consequencesow ns t o the
bishoeric might be dissolved, the title of the city remained;
for instance, Westminster—there the bishopric was dissolved,
but the title of city remained. Surely, then, when the Pope
meant tEhantglciisshril t
rank of
forcirtaietlsr,ehreatmteumstptehdavtoe raise
were to ensue; civil consequences necessarily attached to
such acts, and he did not see how any one could successfully
contend that such steps did not involve territorial jurisdic-
tion and sovereignty. It was said that the Pope did not in-
tend to assume territorial jurisdiction; that he merely in-
tended to invest his bishops and clergy with a purely spi-
ritual character; but what did he find to be the words of the
rescript? They were these--" And in the spiritual govern-
ment of the clergy and people, and in all matters appertain-
ing to the pastoral office, the archbishops and bishops of
England shall henceforward enjoy all the rights and privileges
which the Catholic arubishops and bishops in other states
• have and use, according to the common ordinances of tho
sacred canons and apostolic constitutions." He desired to
i was ttiere, in_that respect, jwy,differenco between this