The southern press., 1851-04-08
In. -, london Correspondent efthe ~ .4merscan

WEEKLY, "
In. -, Io,,d0n Correspondent u the ~ .4mersca"
a., F,;dsv last, in the House of Commons,
A., n,.lsr Of the day for the second reading OF
,hs ecclesiastical titles bill came up, when the
Earl of Arundel moved that the second reading
ha deferred for six months. Upsn this question
= debate was opened, and continued for several
n;ahts The Earl of Arundel argued that the
papal rescript did not infringe the Queens pre-
rogatiye and he believed that serious conse-
olences would ensue if the measure were passed,
even in its amended shape Mr.. Reynolds de-
cared he would oppose the government till this
insulting measure was abandoned. Mr.. K. Pal
mer opposed the bill, believing that il was not
reouired. The dissenters of England and Scot
land were not controlled by the State, and it was
therefore, absurd to refuse to the Roman Catho-
lies their normal ecclesiastical institutions. Sir
Robert Inglis replied that there was an essential
difference between the dssenters and Catholics,
as the internal organization Of the former was
voluntary, and the latter owed an allegiance to
a foreign power lie thought that the aggres-
sion ought to have been met at once by royal
proclamation, or by diplomatic explanation, or
Ancona ought to have been occupied
Sir Robert Peel delivered an elaborate speech
in support of the anti-Papal bill. He thought
that religious toleration ought to he extended
70 all sects. and it was because he believed that
this bill would not interfere with the legal exer-
cse of religious liberty, but would merely con-
troll the abuse of it, that he should vote for it.
He spoke of the ntolerant and nsidious policy
of Rome. and said this last act of aggression
was the first step in an organized system OF at
tack upon the religious faith and civil institutions
Of Enolishmen. Sir r. Peel entreated the
House to prevent an abuse from taking root, the
fruits OF which would endanger the safety of the
State.
The debate was adjourned from Friday till
Monday. when it was resumed by Mr.. Moore,
who contended that if there had been any ag-
preston, it was of spiritual character, and that
the conduct of the present ministers, and espe-
cially the language used by the premier in '46,
must have led the Pope to believe that the estab-
lishment of hierarchy would, if not sanctioned,
at least have been passed over with silence by
the government Mr.. Moore denied that the
anti. .Papal bill would vindicate the rights of the
crown. Mr.. Wigram supported the bill in a
long speech. He considered that the Papal bull
was direct Infringement of the emancipation
act, and that its sole object was to introduce
into England the canon law, which intermeddled
with temporal matters. Upon this ground le-
gislaton was necessary, and also because the as
sumption of territorial titles was an invasion of
the prerogative Of the Qneen. Mr.. Roche be-
lieved that the bill was introduced to snstan the
Protestant church of Ireland, and he denounced
it as parliamentary declaration of puritanica
bigotry and Protestant intolerance. Mr.. Goul-
burn said he should support the bill, although
he did not approve the proceedings of the gov
ernment with reference to the aggression; he
thought that more moderation at the beginning
would have led to calmer discussion of the
subject The act of the Pope was an unpro-
voked aggression, an invasion of the authority
of the crown, and direct attack on the Protes-
tant church. Sir H. Barron showed that the
substitution of bishops for Wears apostolic di-
mnished the direct power of the Pope in this
country He spoke of the bill as paltry, con-
temptible and absurd, and one that, if passed,
would be disgrace to the statute book, and a
source Of endless political evils.
Mr. Charters believed that the Papal hierarchy
was mere spiritual arrangement for the better
government of the Roman Catholics of Eng
land, and as the civil rights of Englishmen were
in no danger, he was opposed to any penal legis-
lation in this case. The solicitor-general said
that the question was, had the Pope, or had he
not, invaded the prerogatve of the crown, vic.
lated the municipal law of England, and the
public law of Europe! By the law of England
and the canon law of Europe, the See of Rome
could not establish Sees without the consent OF
the sovereign. The functions of the Catholic
bishops were not purely spiritual when the whole
country was divided into dioceses, and wher
towns were, by the Papal brief, elevated int,
cities. Parliament should not refuse to the Ro
man Catholics any just claims, but what wa
done should be done through the intervention
of the law, and the known forms of the const
tuition. Mr.. Cardwell had hoped to have hear
from the legal adviser of the government win
dcation of measure by which the evils he ha
spoken Of were to be redressed but the 90,
ernment measure would be Intellectual to restrai
the temporal action of the Catholic bishops
was large enough to irritate, but not to satisf
and it would leave in the vitals of the countr
fostering wound The bill would not Wind
cate the honor Of the crown, would not protec
the sovereignty of Great Britain, and would no
repel territorial encroachment, and he shou
vote againstit. The debate was then adjourne,
till Tuesday, when it was resumed by Mr.. Blew
lit, who opposed the bill as an impolitic measure
An episcopate was necessary for the develop
ment of the Roman Catholic, church in Eng
land, and the Pope might naturally think that h,
was at liberty to appoint bishops simply to su
perintend the affairs of the church.
Mr.. Walter addressed the House at grea
length. He protested against the Pope's act o
aggression and usurpation, and contended tha
the law Of nations had been contravened Par
lament was bound to resist the. pretensions o
an adversary who wanted the power, but not tn,
will, to enforce them. 1t would be dangerou,
to allow the Pope to decide the limits of sprtua
jurisdiction, and still more so to allow him tc
determine questions of mixed character. Lei
the House, said Mr.. Walter, be assured that il
the people were once possessed with the idea
that there existed any danger of Catholic unmar-
ried priests setting themselves up side by side
with the Protestant clergy of dying beques.s
being intercepted; of the confessional being in
troduced as general rule of young women
being seduced into convents and, il they felt
that the law would not protect them, then they
would be very much disposed to take the law in
to their own hands. Mr. Walter expressed the
hope that the government bill would be made
more worthy during its progress through the
committee Mr.. Chisholm Anstay called for
bill dealing with realities, and not mere names
The bill, as applied to England, he regarded Al
intolerent, absurd and unjust, not dealing will
realities but mere shadows and he should vot