The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-23 00:00:00

THE NUN,

'llturing to induce the House to pa-s a law which would ad-
lr.it Jews to Parliament. was lecturing or travelling in
-Vnerica_(Hear, hear) - and totally neglecting the inte-
rests which a numerous body of constituents of the Hebrew
!Persuasion had entrusted to him—(Hear, hear)—and who
tow came forward at this late period, after having re.
•Irad
ned from giving his vote when that vote might have
the decision
great influence, and might have contributed to change
‘oe decision arrived at ultimately.—( Hear, hear.) Had the
seance of the House been such as that they should have had
a large mejority in favour of the admission of the Jews, eis
peuasion wee, that after having passed the Bill fur that
IMrsrPose by a large majority, when it had gone up to the
Reuse of Lords that circumstance would have disposed them
to Pass it, and if the Hon. Member tor the Tower Hamlets
and other lion. Members who now talked about religious
liberty had been there to assist them by their votes they
Would have contributed something towards that result. The
IMtioo of promoting religious libert endeavouring to do
"eV with the laws which interferewith it by attempting to
strain the law to a sense it would not bear was preposterous.
Fe
l*
bro many years the cause of the Roman Catholics was
tight forward by eminent statesmen, Mr. Fox, Mr. Can-
Ilp, and Mr. Plunkett, but they never proposed they should
ret them by changing the oaths, but by changing the
Z7and he had no doubt he (Lord John Russell) was pnr-
eg the proper course on the
present question. The Hon.
gusher for Chichester had
asked him if he would not
'Postpone the close of the debate until the con-
stituency of Greenwich had presented a petition asking
to
be heard at the bar on the question. Whenever that
petition was Presented it would be the duty of the House to
tkiiiok to any precedents which should guide their conduct in
e matter. But he could not see in that any reason, as the
tale now s'ood'whythe
ilth°ritY, decide the case before them as to whether or not
1,.e was entitled to sit without taking the oath of abjure-
.!4ll °n in the form appointed by law. That House was
'l3e3' competent to decide the question for itself'. It would
4171 his duty to bring in next session a measure to relieve
for Jews from their disability , and it would be a matter
consideration whether that Bill should be exactly in
the shape of the Bill of the
present session, or one
l'ittl.ch,should affect generally the oaths taken by Mem-
ts. lot he admitted, with the Honourable Member for
beer
thitse4n, that they were in a very unsatisfactory state. But
he said, that the relief of the Jews from their disabili-
ties was connected with the great cause of civil and religious
keueltY; and he meant to
persevere in the due and ne-
eu sea
hl, rY course of asking the assent of the House to
shoal P for that urp, 'e in the bel of that if there
be a considerable majority in that House in
lavourd of the measure and the voice of the country sup-
ported that decision Without any sort of menace or threat.
net T_the other House, arguing from their conduct on other former
easures, would not further oppose it, and that they would
the have, to wait long before, in the due course of legislation,
obtainfil; eh°4ld be passed. He would do all in his power to
but he' eoole shape or other, the passing of such a Bill,
los en-n ?mold not vote that to be law which he believed in
hirlettl„ce was not the law.
eideefee`',“lELL said that the Noble Lord's resolution de-
suit a'ormed nothing, and it would be a miserable re-
meareiytheair deliberation to go forth to the people. It.
Piece of bad English, which would e
roeprnedstuhrlptr,isiifngly ridiculous in the eyes of the PooPl!. He
the Noble Lord carried his motion with re-
Pelt(' to members of the Hebrew persuasion not being en-
'4'o to sit and vote in that House until they had taken the
ot:tbs
at it
Prescribed by law, he would add the words, " And
order
referred to a S Committee of that , in
sceetain in whatlect form and manner the oath House should
be adininie
ered."- (Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment of the debate ... 59
Against it ..
• ••• ••• 207
On Majority ..• •• —l4B
our re-admission we found
of opki RIGHT urging upon the Government the necessity
ber7ng the suggestion of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ts' for Aylesburv. A petition would be presented to that
',otise from the Con.titnency of the Hon. Member for Green-
t4,`;praying that the question might be further considered;
he hoped that it would be received there in a generous
liberal spirit. In conclusion, he vindicated the Hon.
tateinoer for the Tower Hamlets Mr. G. Thompson) from the
ier cast upon him by the Noble Lord at the head of the
b., rninent, wbo he supposed had been carried away by the
of debate.—.(Cries of " No," and laughter.)
ete.4urd J. RUSSELL said he could not accept of the sugges-
-4l of the Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury. The
titoate seemed likely to assume a character which he should
retrto see ; and, perhaps, it would be more advisable that
of mould not continue a debate likely to engender feelings
tbe-t1 a.ngry nature. In deference, therefore, to what seemed
the
Wishes of the House, he would consent to the adjourn-
ent ot the debate.--( Hear, hear, and cries of "No, no.")
eft•e/11•• DISRAELI would like to know what would be the
ect of the adjournment upon the conduct of the house ? eft_ Whole of the night had been expended in the discussion
ihe_ Point of privilege, which he considered had been most
recessarily raised—(Cheers)—and they had thereby been
e ented from discussing the motion of his Hon. Friend the
,ember for the University of Dublin. He should like the
noble Lord to state at once upon what day he intended to
eontieue the debate .L
Lord J. RUSSE(Hear, hear.)
W
__LL
ith the said he should be prepared to go on
debate on Friday next.
co_B3ir.B. HALL said he would present the petition from the
„an tetuency of the Hon. Member for Greenwich on Thurs-
day Friday, whichever would be most convenient to the
The debate was then adjourned till Friday next.
intellit: , •A-e
',COCK GUANO.
thoughmoved for a Select Committee to inquire
istate and prospects of the trade in guano, which,
taittee Iterative, was shamefully neglected. If the Com-
tirieecittlooti ns:?Lra,,l(e the
eat one day it would be amply sufficient to
value of the commerce which might be car-
Mr.ct_ LA,m,
rp7 n arnitte —`-'',CHERE objected to the appointment of a
e-f"e hi he. • He had heard no reason for its appointment.
e•aced g 0 Price °t. guano was owing to the high export duty
011 the pert "3' the Government of Peru ; and no legislation
ex, port dui' Of that House could lead to a diminution of that
reod' of that price.
leaves et '1! Was then negatived without a division. .
to •'``CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then obtained
tieqe tetr:duce the two following Bills—a Bill to con-
toltutabeotrleisocir,istaemteened the Metropolitan Sewers Aet, and a Bill
application of advances (out of money now
PMPertees'et° be advanced for the improvement of landed
calistric'jiita°tfacilitating emigration from certain distressed
first ti„,_ Scotland; and the Bills were afterwards read a
„The7fo'illow.
414 k mg Bills were read a third time and passed ;-
48 eroantile Act Amendment Bill, the Arrest of
eorld;,_ Marine
th.',"K Debtors Bill the Law of Evidence Amendment
',AR 'ew
rel Forest Dee; Removal, &c., Bill, and the Local
,iminary Inquiries) Bill.
CettZ.. kAnutnons' Enclosure (No. 2) Bill passed through
e_Th, ree METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS.
'4O tr"ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed that
Paeleuee should go into Committee for the. purpose of
the vote for 130,0001., to carry out the intentions of
krleprnment in respect to metropolitan interments.
titiPtion-Grear. opposed proceeding with such an important
fe‘tora 6a- Salt-past one o'clock in the morning.
'ga • STUART also opposed granting such a sum at
Theneasonable hour.
source\ICELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended the
A, 'qr. 13Rial Proposed.
mllereditablWlT thought that the course proposed was most
Sir 1.3. to the Government.
too it
.LIALL also opposed the grant at that hour of the
The Rf,'
l'c'etPo -LIAXCELLORofthe EXCHEQUER ultimately
ri"
the C •
The . Committee until day ( e nes( .
suing •
144 the arnea g business on the paper was then disposed of
'llse adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock.

Alder,
41'our —"an riumphery paired off with Captain Boldero in
The Zio, Alderman 'alomons taking his seat
4 i!dr. s Gprizan Mahon paired, in favour of the admission
kr al""ns, with Colonel Uhatterton, against.l,
c. • Goddard tau respecting Ur. S'alonmao' s, l resolu-
paired i f yur of Lord J. Rasse s . t
with Mr. Banbury, agams .

dih..il:s...___,gw.
Their LoßrouSE OF LORDS, July 2k2.
asysezmrbllerdmatNti.ve o'cloc .
ttioiTiliheulEfftr4ly:Lflr WofINCLIILSE A presented several peti-
The e. the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
%bill &Juke of NEWCASTLE presented one petition
.I"This,,tbtt Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
me, • eke of ARGYLL presented 67 petitions from
4,4, 3 in Lancashire in favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles
slit4tion 13111.
BEDS•
Private Bills were, on the motion of Lord
ECCLES ALE, forwarded a Stage,
fhI,SIMTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
lottenlit'arirl of WINCHILSEA rose to renew Van ad-
likt:' debate on this Bill, and. in doing so he could
1e
whet—eeir Lordships that he had no intention,
of he Baia, of wounding the feelings
h airy
40to J Noble Lord. Since the psesing of the
fe, an Catholic Relief Bill he had cautiously. abstained
...4_,..eataauarleluttnghatdo that subject. sltobject. In his opposition to thatthe
!rl,Penpdora,tearandof
ttoharet
traeztuhreepirwereffirroieneansledvsfehereiapllinogis ;his intimate
he
of principle;
have
!tole any sacrifice short of a sacrifice
ZlRwas because he felt that the principles of the Church
,ome were absolutely destructive of civil and religiou
'telly that he had opposed the Relief Bill. object
Chhuearcrl! of The
igtpf tali:.
er.--
an
44 y of )civil
gettlit Route was to obtain political pow
that
Rerighhatsd
wthoeunld maintained that
heated rob and that if the relief sought by that Bill were
it would be made only the foundation for g
towtii°,ll- Re had at that time been, scouted as a
~
sitijnilunded nar-
bigot;
three and twenty years am,
bee- notlapsed, and he now asked if he
Plee„,, right? The Roman Catholics had been
004;7 upon an equality with the Protestants in this
eq,itrY, and now they sought for more than
Nta"tl• Rome never seceded from her arrogant
iaestell2ioha of supremacy. Those pretensions might be
five:4 ja abeyance at the time, but they were sure
Ah,,-,.`l!allY to be renewed. Ile would not insist upon
Of ...,' oad been since done, upon the sacrifice of our faith,
pee bishops of the Established Church in Ireland,
terhnh „the exclusion of the Scriptures from the national
hlrai'43, upon the opposition of the Roman Catholic
pf itilltehy to the Queen's Colleges. The fruits
lib,' this to
to Rome had been to invite this daring
K.eBsjec. They had been deceived with regard to the
s,ia,,l„tioas of the Ronaish and Protestant population of
tutu l'l, and he had no doubt but that if there were a.
lstioatleb of the dreadful persecution to which the popu
wolliti ot Ireland was subjected by the priests, the people
the d hY thousands embrace Protestantism, and
ltor:larnber of Protestants would equal the number of
tlati.l'ts• Never had such an insult been offered to a
e4ti,4n as that which had been offered to the English
e°44 this aggression of the Pope. It should have been
ehti
etvith strong measures. The Roman Catholic
the r h strong
every liberty, and he denied that
Lie "PPoiatments of bishops in ordinary was
titl.l4ll to the free exercise of the Roman
our, ~ .
kettie:, riengten•(llear.) The 'vicars-apostolic were
tie ziv:i• Thia appointment of bishops was therefore
;• Peobrression and an insult to our Sovereign and her
4•r e• Re did not consider the 13111 betore them suf-
. Nat to
aed 4e meet the outrage which had been committed,
1 'le Should not therefore vote one way or the other.
LoZ. LYNDHURST trusted to be able to satisfy their
hithertiPs before he sat down that the course he had
)qth
t'he Pursued on similar occasions was not at variance
f(>r the St
which he purposed at present to pursue in voting
i.. aecond reading of this Bill. But before coming to
tZpart of the subject he would be permitted to draw atten-
1°
1413i1l 41,14 Which iti tko mat X tigi (lobate iild
. .

not been much considered in its details. Adverting to the
situation he formerly had the honour to hold, he might pro-
batly be allowed to express his opinion as to the operation
and effects of this Bill. It divided itself into two parts. The
first part was declaratory of the existing law; the second, to
a certain extent, enacted a new law. The preamble stated
that divers of her Majesty's subjects had assumed the titles of
pretended sees, under colour of authority from the See of
RA-tie, viz., by virtue of a certain brief, that of September last.
It went on to state that the attenipt to establish such pre-
tended sees by the authority of the Pope of Rome was " ille-
gal and void." It further proceeded to " declare and enact"
the usual words of a declaratory law, but such briefs be ng
without the authority of the Crown, were illegal and void.
It went on further to provide that all jurisdiction, all autho-
rity, all power attempted to be conferred by such illegal
briefs, was also illegal and void. Now what was the point
to be established? First, this was a declaratory law, and
was the law correctly stated in it? He proposed to inquire
into this point, and he was the more anxious to melee the
inquiry, because it was not until the Bill had arrived at its
last stage in the House of Commons that these provisions
were introduced, and were, consequently, not much dis-
cussed. He apprehended, too, that the bare statement of
thifacts would be sufficient to satisfy their Lordships that
the attempt to create those pretended sees by a brief of
the Pope was illegal and void by the law of England.
What were the facts? A foreign prince of spiritual and
temporal authority, issued an ordinance or brief, for the
purpose of creating, or rather of dividing, the territory of
an independent sovereign into various jurisdictions. He
appointed persons possessed of ecclesiastical and spiritual
authority to preside over those ecclesiastical jurisdictions,
and his object was to introduce a code of laws unknown to
this country, which we had indeed sometimes considered in
this country, but uniformly repudiated. Another object
was, that those persons might unite and confederate together
for the purpose of passing any measure suggested or required
for the purpose of their Government. 'Pais ordinance, or
edict, was suggested and framed, not merely by the authority
of the Pope himself, but by a council of foreigners—of foreign
ecclesiastics. A person high in rank in that country, raised
to the dignity of cardinal, but an Englishman by birth, cams
into this country bearing that. title without the assent of our
Sovereign. He took possession of the territory that was as-
signed to him—he was enthroned in it—and he published
this ordinance, or brief, without the least regard either to
the Parliament or to the Sovereign of this country.
He (Lord Lyndhurst) now asked their Lordships
whether such conduct as that was not in direct
violation of the independence of the country ? But
the case did not rest here. It had been a part of the
common law of England from the earliest time, that no see
could be created without the assent of the Crown. That
point had never been disputed.—(Hear, hear.) It was laid
down as a maxim by all our legal writers. Had there been
any alteration in the law since the period of the Reforma-
tion? None whatever. No authority over any part of the
King's dominion could be exercised without the consent of
the Sovereign of the country, or what was equivalent to it,
the assent of the Parliament. But the case did not even rest
here. What was the public law of Europe on the subject?
The universal law was clear and express There was not
a text-writer on the law of nations of any eminence who
did not state in distinct and broad terms, that in no
country of Europe could a see be created without the
consent of its Government or of its Sovereign. And was the
practice consistent with the law, as he had stated it? Per-
fectly, clearly so he believed, without a single exception.
Having cited the examples of Leo the Tenth attempting
twice to found a bishopric on the frontier of Savoy, against,
which the King of France remonstrated, in consequence of
which the briers were withdrawn and cancelled; of Prussia,
a Protestant country, where the Pope being desirous of
founding a bishopric at Magdeburg and two other places,
asked the consent of the King, and was refused per-
mission; of Belgium, where the revolution put an end
to the concordat; of England, where the government
of the Catholic Church had hitherto been carried on by
vicars apostolic; and of a Protestant Swiss canton,
where a see was founded with the permission of the
Government—the Noble and Learned Lord said that these
and all other instances of the kind clearly showed that
where a country was in communication with Rome, or
under concordat, or not under concordat, the practice of
all nations was in strict conformity with the law as he
had stated it. Now, he had mentioned these cases in,
illustration of the law which he had stated on the auiho-
thority of the most eminent text-writers, and he repeated
it again, that all the writers on the law of nations that had
addressed themselves to this subject, uniformly and con-
stantly stated that no see could be established in any coun-
try without the consent of the ruling sovereign. But how
did all this bear on the subject? First, the bare statement
of the facts, as he had before said, might carry conviction to
the mind of every sensible man, but this act of the Pope
was a violation of the independence of our country, and,
therefore, illegal and void. He hoped their Lordships would
think with him that this declaratory law was sufficiently
established—viz , that these briefs, as referred to in the
preamble of the Bill, were illegal and void. Now, further,
he did not mean to rely on the statute of prminunire of
Richard the Second. He agreed with his Noble Friend who
spoke last night, that it was unwise and imprudent to drag
from their obscurity obsolete statutes, and particularly
obsolete statutes accompanied with such severe and heavy
penalties. It was not only unwise, it was wholly unne-
cessary. For what was relied on? The general words at
the close of that Act were, or were supposed, to apply in
the present case. But he said, that if any act were done,
coming strictly within the scope of those words, it would
constitute an offence at the common law of England, and
thereforebe illegal and void. And though they mighttake the
Act to enforce the penalty, it was not necessary to refer to it
for the present purpose ; for if, by the law of England, it
were an offence at the common law, it was of necessity
illegal and void. In his opinion it was imprudent, indeed,
and improper in the highest degree, to refer even to what
was commonly called " Lalor's case." The observations he
had hitherto made applied only to the first clause of the
statute, and that was a declaratory law. Now, what were
the ether parts of this Bill? A person who assumed the
title of a pretended see, adopted the act of the person
who conferred, and which being an illegal act by this Bill,
a fortiori, it was illegal to adopt it. As the law stood at
present, the prohibition could only be enforced by the At-
torney-General. That law had been in force for upwards
of twenty years, and a violation of it—he would not say to
what extent, had long been going on in Ireland. What,
therefore, could be more unwise than to institute a prohibi-
tion and suffer it to become dormant from the want of pro-
per machinery to enforce it?—(Hear, hear.) It was on those
grounds, therefore, that he felt it necessary to adopt the ad-
ditional means provided in the Bill, for enforcing the penalty.
He was a party to the Relief Act of 1829, and was satisfied,
not only that it was a measure of justice, but that, consider-
ing the state of parties in that House, it was absolutely ne-
cessary. They were well aware themselves at the time of the
poobable consequences of the measure ; but the question was
of such a nature, and the sense of duty so strong, that they
yielded to it as a matter of reason and justice—and he should
never regret, for one, the part he had taken in passing it. The
Noble Lord who spoke so well last night from the other side
of the House, directed his attention to various Acts of Par-
liament, which, though necessary, he admitted, at the time
they were introduced, had become, he would not say a shame,
but certainly anything but a credit to the statute-book. At
his request ke had referred the subject to a Commission then
sitting on the state of the criminal law, and instructed the
Commissioners to report to him upon it with a view to ascertain
how far those Acts might with safety be dispensed with. The
consequence was that he expunged from the statute-book the
greater part of those statutes, and in some cases the extreme
penalties that were attached to the offences they were directed
against. The object he had in view was to grant tolera-
tion to Roman Catholics, and a full participation in the
rights and privileges of their fellow-subjects. This was his
object, and he thought he had accomplished it. He was
disappointed. Toleration had never satisfied the Roman
Catholics; it. was a principle, indeed, wholly alien to the
Roman Catholic Church. What was its object but domina-
tion and ascendancy? Its advocates and agents never
flagged in the race until they had fully attained the object
of their ambition. What they were 300 years ago, they
he now, and would, probably, continue so. While e was
favourable to a full concession of their rights,be still remem-
bered that toleration was not domination and upon that
ground he took his stand. and voted in support of this Bill.
The Roman Catholic . elief Act was much di-cussed at the
time, and its provisions were adopted and approved by those
in whom the Roman Catholics placed confidence. But what
happened? An assumption of titles, and encroachment on
the prerogative of the Crown, certainly not general, but v'rs
extensive, had taken place, and now demanded attention.
The Noble and Learned L rd then referred to the prohibition
against the introduction of Jesuits, but that prohibition he
said had been set at defiance, and there were in this country
nearly twenty monasteries, established in open violation of
the prohibition he had alluded to. The Roman Catholics
bad taken all that was granted to them, and had taken more,
but in return they had not given a single thing they had
promised.—( Hear, hear.) What had been the conduct of
the Catholics in Ireland? An Act of Parliament was passed
for establishing colleges for the education of the middle
classes of that country. Every care was taken to make these
colleges acceptable, and that they should not raise any idea
of a desire to make proselytes. and they were approved of by
some of the best men among the Roman Catholics, yet what
was the result? On the death of the late Catholic Arch-
bishop of Armagh, the names of three dignitaries of that
Church were sent to the Pope, according to the usual prac-
tice, for the selection of the new archbishop. Yet these three
names were set aside by the Pope, and a stranger was chosen
—a monk, he believed—to be Catholic Primate in Ireland.—
( Hear.) When the new primate arrived, he convened a synod,
which spoke by the mouth of the majority, and, as might be
imagined under such circumstances, the decision of the
synod was against the colleges. That decision was con.
Armed by the Pope, and all the beneficial intentions of Par-
liament were set aside. When they were talking of educa-
tion—of Roman Catholic education—he would refer to a
work he had seen nearly 60 years ago, and had not seen
since—he meant the PrinciP ia of Newton. Two Jesuits
wrote notes on
thsihpoiwa,edan tledat the the Principia—very learned notes—and
they
conclusionsknew very
at
wwellh i theoh
it arrived. principles
h
theey
p:3iyuc
said, " We have commented on this curious work; we show
iwthmaut
satrenotht ebeionotoenoetiiovneds at nhdatcwoneealussseionntstooftbthosee
oaouotohlours,iobnuat,
or that we differ one iota. from the doctrines of the Catholic
) Such was the conduct pursued
”.-- har
Church in matters having reference to education.
bCyh utrhcaht. ( 11ear,
It was to be borne in mind. that in establishing the
in Ireland, everything was done for
newthebeing turned into
purposecolleg colleges s
of
purposes of preventing plea,
proselytising. Yet, the Catholics endea-
voured to appoint Roman Catholic professors, and
the object evidently was, to turn them out Roman Catholic
colleges. The Government having interfered, the priests
took measures in consequence to withdraw the Roman Ca-
tholic children.—(Hear, bear.) As to what had been done
for the relief of the Catholics, he approved of it, and if it
was to be done again he would do it ; but not one step
would he go farther to contribute to that domination which
the Catholics aimed at.—(Hear, hear.) On that principle
he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, and he
trusted he had acquitted himself in the course he was pur-
suing, and had shown that he was not departing from those
principles which he had before supported.—(The Noble and
Learned Lord then sat down amid loud cries of " Hear,
hear.")
Lord VAUX considered that this Bill was infinitely more
stringent than it was at first intended to be, and he felt sa-
tisfied that a declaration might have been framed with re-
ference to the formation of a Catholic hierarchy, which would
have met the wishes of the people of this country, and have
been satisfactory to the Catholic people.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord was understood to oppose the Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW opposed the second reading of
the Bill. A Bill had been made, a totally different measure
from that which the Government intended it to be, yet the
Noble Marquis had not called the attention of their Lordships
to that circumstance. It was clear that the clauses which
had been introduced in the other House of Parliament would
render illegal all the acts of tke Roman Catholics in the ap-
pointment of their bishops, and, among other things, would
annul their marriaees. The evil effect of such a law might
easily be anticipated. The only hope was that it would be
permitted to remain what his Noble Friend (the Earl of
Aberdeen) last night hinted at—a dead letter in the statute
book—as the 24th clause of the Catholic Relief Act had been
allowed to remain since its enactment. The Noble and
Learned Lord who had just addressed them, said the exist-

LONDON,

ing law was sufficient. If so, what necessity was there
far any new laws?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble and
Learned Lord also said the 24th clause of the Ca-
; tholic Relief Act had been systematically set at dd.-
ance, and that each successive Attorney-General had
slept at his post. He approved therefore of the introduc-
' tian of this measure for the purpose of awaking him. But
the Noble and Learned Lord forgot that he himself had been
in power, and had nut enforced the law.—(Hear, hear.) If
the Attorney-General of the day attempted to enforce the
law in Ireland, he wound not only fail to do that, but pro-
duce the most direful effects in that country.—(Hear, hear.)
The Government seemed to have forgotten that if it was their
intention to avenge an insult, they had taken the most
feeble and unreasonable course of doing so. He did not say
that they should enter into a war with a puny power, but
they should have remembered that in endeavouring to punish
that power for any aggression committed by it, it was not a
foreign power they were inflicting this wound upon, but their
own fellow-subjects.—( Hear, hear.) It was not the Roman
Government they assailed, but the members of the Roman
Catholic Church in this country.—(Hear, hear.) If this
law was put in force, the Roman Catholics of this country
' could no longer exercise their religion here, they would be
obliged o pack up their goods and chattels, and tied some
other land where they could worship God. Was it likely
they would do so? He thought not. On the contrary, he
believed they would set the law at nought, and laugh at it.
Under these circumstances he should give his cordial sup-
port to the amendment of the Noble Earl.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he could not help ex-
pressing the very deep regret with which he heard the con-
cluding sentences of the speech of the Noble and Learned
Lord. He stated that the Roman Catholic Church was
never satisfied with toleration, but always aimed at domina-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) If such were the reasons which ins
duced the Noble Lord to act as he did now, they ought to
have influenced him before. For that had always been true
of the Roman Catholic Church, and instead of taking away
disabilities we should have retained all the disabilities which
had ever been imposed for the purpose of repressing that
Church. He would not pretend to dispute the legal point
raised by his Noble and Learned Friend. He believed no one
in that House was competent to do so. He, at all events,
was not ; but, taking the law as it was laid down by lawyers
of eminence in the other House of Parliament, the present
Bill, so far from meeting the object intended, would make
confusion worse confounded. Supposing the Pope withdrew
the hierarchy he had recently created, and reappointed the
vicars apostolic, or proposed to enter into an arrangement
with the Government. Would that be done? He believed
not. It never had been the practice in this country to give
or to seek the consent of the Crown in the appointment of
Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. His Noble and Learned
Friend had complained of the remissness of Attorney-Gene-
rals with respect to the 24th clause of the Relief Act. He
must say that it was strange his Noble and Learned Friend
had not stated his complaint sooner.—(Hear.) The whole
course of his own career, when in office, and of all successive
Governments, had been such as to impress the people of
Ireland with the belief that that clause was intended to be a
dead letter, and but for the speech of his Noble and Learned
Friend that night he should have treated it as one of those
obsolete laws which his Noble and Learned had repealed.
If this measure was intended to give any security to the
Established Church, he should say, as a member of that
Church, he should oppose it on that specific ground, for the
day had gone by when it was for the interest of that Church
that its maintenance or security should be based on the in-
jury or exclusion of any other class whatever.—( Hear.) It
was said, however, that this was an aggression on the
Queen's supremacy. He did not concur in that opinion.
The rescript of the Pope in reality asserted only a canonical
power, not a temporal authority. As to the argument that
it interfered with the prerogative of the Queen as the foun-
tain of honour—and a Noble Lord who spoke last night
rested his whole case on the fact, that it was an interference
with the prerogative of the Sovereign—he would not attempt
to justify the manner in which this aggression had been
made.—(Hear, hear.) There had, to say the least of it,
been a want of common civility.—(Hear, hear.) But there
wag a difference in the character and nature of titles. Titles
of honour and distinction, such as those borne by their Lord-
ships, could only be conferred by the Sovereign; but the
titles of the Roman Catholic prelates were derived from their
offices. They were not appointed to their dioceses by the
Queen; they were not recognised by the law, and there•
tore he could not see how such titles could, in
the slightest degree, be considered an invasion of
the prerogative of the sovereign ; and even the
clause which recognised the spiritual character of these
titles was enough, in his opinion, to stultify the whole Bill.
He did not consider that this measure affected Roman
Catholics alone. He knew the risk he ran in hazarding that
opinion on a matter of law in the face of the House, and in
the presence of Noble Lords so competent to deal with it,
but he appealed to his Noble Friend on the woolsack whe-
ther, by modifying and giving effect to the statute of
Richard II , which this measure did, would not merely
enable the immediate purpose which it was enacted to be
effected, but also purposes which it never was intended to
effeet. If such were the case then, he thought the Dis-
senters of this country, including that meet respectable
body of Wesleyans, who had approached them with so many
petitions, might tremble at the future effect of these pro-
visions. He thought that in these days, as in days gone by,
the Puritans might tremble at the consequences of some
fresh persecution which might arise from the reeuscitation
of those laws. So far from it being an extension of the Act of
1829, it was a measure revivifying old statutes which had be-
come obsolete, notmerely to the prejudice of the Roman Catho-
lics, but of every other class of dissenters from the Established
Church of this kingdom. Now to return to the observation
of the Noble Marquis with regard to dealing with a foreign
power. Suppose they were dealing with a foreign power—
which he maintained they were not—in what capacity had
the Pope of Rome sent the rescript of which you complain,
and in which complaint he joined them, so far as its tone
was to be taken into consideration ? Although a foreign
power, in one sense, the Pope had not sent that rescript here
in his capacity as Sovereign of the Roman States, but as the
head of the Roman Catholic Church all over the world.—
(Hear, hear.) He would not touch upon what his Noble
Friend had said respecting a concordat, although it seemed
to him an obvious remedy for the evils complained of;
whether it was an expedient measure he would not discuss.
But when they spoke of the concordats established
with other countries, he asked whether more was
assumed in them than the power to consent to
certain arrangements? —( Hear, hear.) He believed
that in no country had there been exercised a
power of prohibition such as was to be enforced
by the measure before them. But, in reality, the
objection to this act of the Pope, as that of a foreign
power, struck at the root of all toleration. The Roman
Catholic clergy received their ability to perform their
functions from none but the Pope, and if they cut off from
them the source of their authority, they deprive them
of all power of performing their functions. Even the
priests indirectly, and their superiors directly, received their
authority from Rome, and the whole fabric must fall to
pieces if they raised that objection and acted upon it. But
they said this was not a spiritual, but a temporal act. If
that were so, then, he said, the measure under their con-
sideration was far too weak. The Noble Marquis and the
Noble Lord opposite both advanced, as one ground for this
measure, that there were many Roman Catholics in this
country who claimed the protection of the Legislature
against the proceedings of their own clergy. Now he must
say he thought they should have nothing to do with that.—
(Hear, hear.) There would be an end of all religious free-
does if Parliament were thus to be called on to interfere in
the religious concerns of any sect. The Roman Catholics
submitted voluntarily to the influence exercised over them
by their clergy, and they were not compelled to submit to it
longer than they chose. The Noble Marquis said he was
satisfied that the functions of the Roman Catholic religion
had been always satisfactorily performed by the vicars
apostolic. It might be so or not, but he questioned the
right of the Noble Marquis, or of that House, to set them-
selves up as judges on that point. He would only say, that
that opinion was at variance with the opinion entertained by
other parties. He admitted that he saw with regret the
spread of Roman Catholic principles. But he asked them against
what party in the Church of Rome was this Bill directed?
Was it against what he might term the English party, or
against what he might term the Roman party? He thought
it would follow that the Bill was directed, not intentionally,
but practically, against the English party, who desired to be
inslependent of the Court of Rome. He next maintained
that he had a right to assume that, if the Pope had
asked the consent of Government to this appointment of
;i hierarchy, that consent would have been given, at least,
sub silentio. In 1846, the Noble Lord now at the head sf
her Majesty's Government advocated the establishment
pf the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland, and said
his policy with regard to that country would be, to place
the Apglican Church, the Presbyterian Church in the north
of Ireland, and the Roman Chu! ch, on a footing of
perfect equality in every respect.—( Hear, hear.) Was that
no encouragement to the Pope?—(Hear, hear.) Had not
the Pope a right to assume that the Noble Lord who ex-
pressed such opinions, would not resent so much smaller a
measure as that he had adopted, and that he would not
have encouraged, so unwisely, those expressions of Pro-
testant feeling which that measure gave rise to.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Marquis would no doubt have alluded to
the appointment of the Bishop of Jerusalem in terms more
fitted to his purpose had he been able to do so. But he
maintained it was impossible to appoint a bishop without
giving to him the name of the diocese over which he had
jurisdiction. The Noble Marquis could not contend that
the words of the preamble were intended merely to prohibit
titles, for they had a decidedly larger operation. He would
refer to the opinion of as lawyer of great eminence, and a
faithful member of the Church of England, that the invali-
dation of the appointment of the Roman Catholic archbishops
and bishops would invalidate also the rite of ordi-
nation, and the sacred one of marriage, and he
could not contemplate a more frightful social evil.
With regard to the parcelling out of the country into
districts, the cant phrase which the Noble Marquis had
adopted to describe the division of the country into dice
ceses, that parcelling out had taken place on several former
occasions without remonstrance from the Government and
without alarm or production of mischief on the part of those
who had been lousiest in declaring their apprehension of
what might ensue from the recent act of the Pope. It was
divided in 1688 without remonstrance, and again in 1840 into
8 districts for vitals apostolic; and again, subsequently, into
13 districts, or rather dioceses. Tne Noble Marquis had com-
plained that the Pope had practically ignored the existence
of the Anglican Church • but, apart from what might appear
to be offensive in such a line of conduct, there was really no-
thing to complain of. He, for one, would not consent to give
a vote in favour of a measure which had been supported on
such grounds as he had heard advanced on behalf of it, and
which would have such an operation as he apprehended.
The Noble Marquis feared the increase of influence
which the Catholic priesthood were acquiring over the
Catholic laity? He (the Duke of Newcastle) feared that
this Bill would only serve to increase that influence.
iComplaintcu
uh
tardy
,b ebeunt mi at d e oou fg
ht ht efinr
sutmtboe rboe f
shownreli gi o ut
hs a hthouses
were not conducted in accordance with the law or the dic-
tates of morality. He believed they strictly were so. And
with regard to their denunciation of the Synod of Thurles,
or of Dr. Cullen, he believed that the colleges of Ireland
were not in the slightest danger from either of those quar-
ters, but rather the spirit which was being engendered by
the course of legislation they were now engaged in.
(Hear, hear.) The Irish colleges were, perhaps, the greatest
boon that had yet been conferred upon the Irish people, and
he confidently believed that the laity of Ireland, if not
thwarted by the irritating offensiveness of Mill of this kind,
would, of themselves, render them all that the Legislature
had ever desired.—(Hear, hear.) Assuming the correctness
of the law which had been laid down by his Learned Friend
(Lord Lyndhurst), and which he was not prepared to
dispute, that the Pope had committed a breach
of international law, he was of opinion that such
being the case the course they should have pursued
was not the bringing in of such a Bill, but they should have
endeavoured to obtain redress by means of diplomatic inter-
course. He thought that at the meeting of Parliament if
they had, either by means of a protest, or by an address to
the Crown, stated their disapprobation of the act of the Pope,
and of their attachment to the Protestant Church, he believed
that by so doing they would have obtained all that was re-
quired, and all that the necessity of the case demanded. Say
what they would, the passing of this Act was making a step
backwards, and was letting in the small end of the wedge
for the undying Ofialuch of that which Parliament had al-