PAPAL AGGRESSION—ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES—ADJOURNED DEBATE (FOURTH NIGHT).

HC Deb 14 February 1851 vol 114 cc629-99

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate [7th February], Debate resumed.

MR. FAGAN

regretted it was not his fortune to have addressed the House earlier in the debate. He felt he laboured under several disadvantages in consequence. The subject was exhausted, and the House was wearied by the protracted discussion. Had he had the good fortune to speak before the division of last evening, he should have been sustained by the support and encouragement of his hon. Friends near him, from whom on that occasion he was most reluctantly compelled to separate himself, from a sense of public duty, in maintenance of the political principles of his whole life, and in resistance to a scheme of financial policy which he conscientiously believed to be destructive to the best interests not only of this country but of Ireland. But though he may not be so sustained, he should address himself to the subject to the best of his ability, consoled with the hope that they may succeed in taking the sting and venom out of the measure, rather than commit it to a new Parliament summoned in the state of religious excitement in that country, and before the new Irish franchises came into maturity. And though his constituents, in common with the rest of Ireland, were indignant at the conduct of the Government, he had no doubt they would appreciate the motives which influenced him, and admit that, under the present circumstances of this country, he had adopted the best and most prudent course. In addressing himself to the subject under debate, he felt the necessity of placing the Catholic view of it more prominently before the House. It is curious on a question so vitally, and according to the Attorney General's exposition of the Bill, so fearfully affecting the Catholic religion, to observe the course of the debate, and bear in mind the sentiments expressed by the Members who had spoken. Up to Wednesday but three Catholics bad addressed the House. The question was discussed by Protestants of the Established Church, and by Dissenters, after their own fashion. There was the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), one of the Society of Friends. He with great power and eloquence attacked the Church Establishment, and at the same time mildly hinted at the errors of the religion of two hundred millions of his fellow-beings. There was the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), an Episcopalian, who eloquently and with characteristic vigour opposed the measure of the Government, and yet expressed his surprise how any one could be a Catholic, or bow before a priest. Then there was the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), a Low Churchman, who spoke of purifying his own Church, while he was denouncing the supposed corruptions of the Catholic; and the Member for Oxford (Mr. Page Wood), who maintained his High Church views, while he enlarged on doctrines of the Catholics which had no existence. Then some Irish, English, and Scotch Members, of the Protestant faith, fought the battle of religious liberty for their Catholic fellow-subjects as they would have done before emancipation; but, until Wednesday, the Catholics themselves were scarcely heard, or at least the Catholic view of the subject fairly put before the House. This the Member for Carlisle (Mr. P. Howard) had effected with great success. In that line of argument he (Mr. Fagan) would follow, and endeavour to elucidate some points not touched on by that hon. Member. He claimed, therefore, as a Catholic, and the representative of a large Catholic constituency, the indulgence of the House, while he stated the reasons why he resisted the introduction of the Bill under discussion, and why he should give it in all its future stages the most strenuous opposition. Not having read one of the hundred and fifty pamphlets on the Papal question, he should not press any but his own views on the House, and should not weary them with arguments with which they were made familiar by these publications. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had based his measure, in the first instance, on the case of Ireland. He (Mr. Fagan) would reverse that arrangement, and commence with England, and then go to the case of Ireland; and he would, as the topics arose, comment on the speeches of those who preceded him. Notwithstanding the opening statement of the noble Lord, and his speech on Wednesday, notwithstanding the strong language used by the Secretary of State (Sir G. Grey), and the indignant denunciation of Papal aggression by the Members for Oxford and Bath, the question at issue, in his opinion, still was this—Was there, or was there not, cause given by the Roman Catholics for the course adopted by the Government—for the language used not only in his celebrated letter, but also in the three speeches lately delivered to that House by the head of that Government? Was there, or was there not, cause given for that retrogression by that great party who hitherto professed to be advocates for civil and religious liberty, which it was admitted by the noble Lord had taken place? Was there cause given for that indignation and excitement amongst a largo portion of the English people, which had been so studiously kept alive for the last three months? In point of fact, was there, as the noble Lord stated, any assumption of territorial sovereignty—any infringement on the prerogatives of the Crown—any interference with the privileges of the Established Church—and, above all, was there given, or intended to be given, any insult to our gracious Queen? If there had been, though a Roman Catholic, he, for one, would not be surprised at the course adopted by the Government, or at the language used, or the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord and this great Protestant country. He knew well the opinion of the noble Lord and of the majority of that House concerning the Catholic religion. They believed that the doctrines of that religion tended "to confine the intellect and enslave the soul," and that its ceremonies were but the "mummeries of superstition." He did not wonder at these prejudices being entertained by even educated men. For the last three hundred years almost every work in modern literature which issued from the press of this country for the instruction of the rising youth, and used in the universities, the colleges, the boarding schools—every work on history, biography, political literature, and belles lettres—to say nothing of polemics—teemed with the most false and calumnious imputations against the principles—moral, religious, and political—of the Roman Catholics. He could not wonder then at these prejudices existing in the minds of educated men, and so existing, he could not be surprised if an aggression on this country had really been attempted by this hateful religion, that every effort was made to resist it; and that having a blow aimed at his head, the noble Lord should retrograde, in order to put himself in the attitude of self-defence. But his (Mr. Fagan's) position was, that there was no cause given—no assumption of territorial sovereignty—no infringement of the prerogative of the Crown—no interference with the Established Church—and no insult given or intended to be given to our gracious Sovereign. If it be true that in this country there is still religious liberty—if the full exercise of religious opinion is allowed—if every sect, no matter how numerically small, is permitted to develop fully and properly whatever ecclesiastical government it seems fitting for the spiritual welfare of its community, it surely will not be contended that the Roman Catholics, who are one-third of Her Majesty's subjects in the united kingdom, are not to maintain and practise the tenets of their religion? On the assumption that liberty of conscience is permitted to Roman Catholics, his whole argument will be based. But before he entered on that, let him observe, on the charge of pomp and parade, in the mode with which the change in the ecclesiastical government of the Roman Catholics was effected, and the language in which the documents were couched. If there were the appearance of pomp and parade, it was attributable to the publication of these documents, and not to Cardinal Wiseman or to any Roman Catholic. These documents, namely, the apostolic letter and the pastoral address, were solely addressed to the Roman Catholics, to be read at their altars, and not to be published in newspapers. This publication was designed to rouse the people of this country against the Roman Catholics, and hence the parade and ostentation which occurred. Indeed, so determined was the public press there should be ostentation, that in a case where a copy of a pastoral of Cardinal Wiseman's was refused, the reporter attended the Catholic place of worship, in order, nolens volens, to take it in shorthand. Cardinal Wiseman is not, then, fairly liable to the charge of parade and ostentation. Again, the pomposity of the documents is insisted on; and the noble Lord, amidst loud cheers the other evening, drew a contrast between Cardinal Wiseman's proclamation, stating that "he governed, and would continue to govern, Middlesex, Hereford, and Essex," and the ordinary proclamation of "Victoria, by the grace of God, Queen." But the noble Lord suppressed a material part of the pastoral in which the passage occurs. It runs thus:— So that, at present, and till such time as the Holy See shall think fit otherwise to provide, we govern, and shall continue to govern, the counties of Middlesex, Hertford, and Essex, as Ordinary thereof, and those of Surrey, amp;c., as Administrator, with ordinary jurisdiction. Now, let him read to the House a passage from a letter which appeared in the Morning Chronicle of last Wednesday, and which he happened to know came from the highest authority on these points. The writer says, speaking of the word "Ordinary," which the noble Lord omitted— The words which I put in capitals his Lordship carefully suppressed. I presume his Lordship knew that 'Ordinary' means 'Bishop; and I therefore put it to any one of common fairness, and not overheated by any excitement, whether to say that one 'governs as a bishop' is an assertion of sovereignty, and entitles the ecclesiastic who employs the term to the elegant appellation of a 'pseudo-king?' I believe the term 'Ordinary' is perfectly English, for it has been frequently used by Anglican prelates of late; but with Catholics the term is peculiarly apposite, as it expresses a bishop who is not a vicar-apostolic. Having thus disposed of the parade, ostentation, and pretence of sovereignty, he would come to another accusation made by the noble Lord, namely, that— According to the letter of the documents, and the known law of Rome, a pretension is asserted that all baptised persons should submit to the foreign dominion of Rome. Now, in reply, he would say that neither in the documents nor in the law of Rome was there any such pretension. He had no hesitation to state what the doctrine of the Catholic Church was in that respect. It was this: the Catholic Church holds there is but one baptism, and that the sacrament of baptism administered by even a layman, of any religion, is good and valid. The Church Established maintains that no baptism outside its fold is good. Now, in consequence of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, it of necessity considers all persons baptised as belonging to the Catholic faith until they arrived at the use of reason, and when they were supposed to select their faith. After which, of course, the Catholic Church had no claim whatever on them; and, he must say, it was a far more liberal and generous doctrine than that of the Established Church, which held that there was no regeneration without baptism in their own Church. But that there was any pretension that "all baptised persons should submit to the foreign dominion of Rome" was altogether a mistake on the part of the noble Lord. The doctrine of the Catholic Church on this point may be illustrated thus: If a person of British parents is born in a foreign country, that person is, ipso facto, a British subject; but he is not subject to the laws of England, nor does he owe allegiance to the Sovereign if, from his birth, he continues in that foreign country. It is only when he returns and becomes domiciled in England—as in the case of Cardinal Wiseman himself—that he comes under the responsibilities of a subject. So it is as regards all baptised persons. It is only when they actually become Catholics that they are at all subject to the spiritual dominion of Rome. But, in truth, whether there was parade or ostentation or not—whether there was a pretension or not that all baptised persons should be subject to the dominion of Rome, was beside the question. The whole matter in controversy turned upon two other tenets of the Catholic religion; and if the maintenance of these tenets are sanctioned by the laws of the land, on the principle of religious liberty, then there is an end of the controversy—no matter whether these tenets are founded on truth or not—for, in that House composed of men of all religious opinions, it would be exceedingly bad taste to discuss that point. Now the first of these two tenets is, that the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome is, by Divine institution, head of the Catholic Church, and as such has the right of episcopal institution—of conferring jurisdiction—of appointing directly or indirectly, to vacant bishoprics, or creating new sees, whenever they are made necessary by the requirements of religion in any quarter of the globe—whether it be England, Ireland, France, Russia, Prussia, or America. And here he would remark on two mistakes made by the noble Lord on this subject in his opening statement. He appeared to think, that there was something like a usurpation on the part of the Holy See, in appointing Dr. Cullen to the Catholic archdiocese of Armagh, and in passing over the persons recommended, or, as he stated, "elected" by the parish priests of that diocese. Now, in point of fact, the clergy have simply the power of recommending three persons as worthy—more worthy—and most worthy; and in practice, the person of the three, who is in addition, recommended by the bishops of the province, is instituted into the diocese by the Holy See. This practice was adopted in 1829. In sustentation of his statement, he would read the concluding passage of the rescript of Gregory the Sixteenth on this subject. It runs thus:— These are the rules prescribed by the Sacred Congregation to be followed in recommending to the Apostolic See priests to be elected bishops. In thus decreeing it has wished to make known to all, that, in the documents relative to this matter which are forwarded to the Holy See, there shall be nothing contained which intimates elec- tion, postulation, nomination, or anything beyond simple recommendation. It ordered also that the aforenamed document must be drawn up in a form of petition, that it may appear that the Holy See is under no obligation of electing one of the recommended:— Finally, the Sacred Congregation declared, that the freedom of the Holy See, in selecting bishops, must ever remain safe and inviolate; so that the recommendations are intended to give light and knowledge to, and not to impose obligation on, the Sacred Congregation. He would offer no opinion—it would be unbecoming of him to do so, either in condemnation or approval of the conduct of the Holy See on that occasion. At the same time, it was but justice to say, that the eminent divines who were recommended by the parish priests and bishops, were in every respect unexceptionable. It was sufficient for him to show, that according to the tenets of the Catholic faith, the power of institution resides with the Pope. This, no person being a Catholic can deny. Again, on the same subject, the noble Lord is under a mistake, when he says, that in no other country in Europe, would the Pope dare to have committed the act he has lately done in that country. Now, the noble Lord forgot that with the countries he named, there exist concordats—that is, agreements on the part of the Pope, giving up, for the welfare of the national branch of the Church over which he presides, a portion of his rights as its head. For instance, in the despotic empire of Russia, to prevent the extirpation of the religion altogether, he accepts the recommendation of the Emperor, and in practice, without acknowledging his right of recommendation, he acts on it. With Prussia, too, there is a concordat. Every one knows how necessary that was for the Catholic religion in Prussia. Every one knows how the late King of Prussia acted in respect of the established religion of the State, namely, Lutheranism. By a single decree he altered the religion in toto of the State—and ordered his Lutheran subjects to change their opinions, and his orders were obeyed. So it would have been with the Catholic religion, but for the concordat. So, likewise, was it with France. The Gallican liberties of that country were secured by two celebrated concordats: one entered into, in the reign Francis the First—the other in the time of Napoleon. And it should be recollected, that in these countries the Catholic Church was endowed. The Archbishop of Cologne, for instance, has 4,000l. a year. But the noble Lord repudiates all concordats; and he (Mr. Fagan) was delighted he had done so. He was no advocate for the veto, and he hoped no Minister would ever succeed in obtaining it. The noble Lord did what he accused the Pope of doing towards the Protestants of England. He entirely ignored his Holiness. He acknowledged him merely as the "Sovereign of the Roman States." He, or rather the law, requires if any diplomatic relations be established, that a layman should be sent here as his Holiness's representative, to prevent any mistake about his being recognised in his spiritual capacity. What course, then, had the Pope open to him, if he deemed it necessary for the spiritual welfare of English Catholics, that the normal system of ecclesiastical government should be established amongst them, but to act without reference to a Government that ignored his existence as spiritual Pontiff? or how could he make allusion to the Protestants of these countries with whom he had nothing to say? Whatever could be done consistently with what was due to his own dignity, was done. The law of the land was adhered too, and the suggestions of Dr. Ullathorne disregarded; and the attention of Lord Minto was directed to the document. Well then, to pass to the subject, the Pope as spiritual head of the Catholic Church has, however, according to its tenets, to give episcopal jurisdiction and institution in this country; but it is not as a temporal prince. Outside of his own dominions he has no temporal power. Dr. Doyle, in his evidence before a Committee of that House in 1825, in answer to the following question—"Is the claim that some Popes set up to temporal authority opposed to Scripture and tradition?" answers—"In my opinion it is opposed to both." Archbishop Curtis also says—"We owe him no other but spiritual authority, exercised according to the canons of the Church." Such was the opinion of two most eminent divines of the Catholic Church, and such was the opinion of all Catholics. There was no such distinction as that drawn by the Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), between Catholics of the Court of Rome, and Catholics of the Church of Rome. The doctrines of the Catholic faith were inflexible, and held by all, and it was no part of their religion to be temporal adherents of the Court of Rome. They believed that religion would have been on the whole benefited if the Popes had had nothing to do with temporal power, and had confined themselves strictly to the exercise of their spiritual authority. Whenever they made that authority or influence subservient to temporal aggrandisement, or used it for personal or family purposes, as was done by Alexander VI., then religion suffered. But it was a just matter of pride to know that out of the 260 Popes who filled the Chair of St. Peter, the veriest enemy of Catholicity could not point to more than twenty, or at most thirty, who had by such practices disgraced the religion they professed. Gregory VII., and Innocent III., though their names are in this country used as bugbears to keep up the delusion against the Catholic religion, are examples of what value was the spiritual influence of the Popes, when separated from temporal ambition, to religion, and to human liberty and progress. It was the spiritual power exercised by these eminent men that checked despotism in those days, that stood between the people and their oppressors—that curbed the licentiousness of the nobles and barons, put an end to their simoniacal practices, and prevented their converting the revenues of the Church to their own vile purposes. In behalf of liberty and order—when there existed neither police, nor a press, nor a standing army—the Catholic clergy were foremost. But though he repudiated the temporal authority of the Pope, he held, with the Foreign Secretary of State, that he should be an independent Prince, and not under the control, nor subject to the temporal authority of any other Power. The tenet of the Catholic Church, that the Pope is its spiritual head apart and distinct from his temporal sovereignty, is that on which is based his right of spiritual influence over Catholics in all parts of the globe, in England, Ireland, France, Prussia, Russia, and in America; where he has erected bishoprics and established a hierarchy precisely as he has done in England. The exercise of this tenet is admitted by the law of the land; it is recognised by the leading statesmen of the day, particularly by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; and it is maintained by the Roman Catholics without any the slightest infringement of their allegiance. It was an old charge oft repeated in former days, that their allegiance was divided. It has been repeated in that debate. Now, it was no more a divided allegiance than was that of the 2,000 clergymen of the Established Church, with the Bishop of Exeter at their head, who denied the Queen's spiritual supremacy in matters of faith and doctrine. The Roman Catholics did no more. The other tenet of the Catholic Church in connexion with the question before the House was, that the episcopal hierarchy was a divine institution. The hierarchy was of two kinds: the hierarchy of order, consisting of his hops, priests, and ministers; and the hierarchy of jurisdiction, of which the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, was the head, then the patriarchs, the primates, metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops. Now, the normal manner in which this divine institution was established is, by having the jurisdiction reside in the bishop of the see to which he was appointed, and of which he held the territorial title, as in the case of St. James the Apostle, who was Bishop of Jerusalem, and had jurisdiction over it, and enjoyed the territorial title of that see; as also in the case of St. Peter, who was first Bishop of Antioch, and afterwards Bishop of Rome, and without any imperial authority. Any other mode of establishing the hierarchy of the Church was clearly temporary and abnormal. It was so with the vicars-apostolic system in England. It was manifestly inconsistent that the Bishop of Rome should be also Bishop of England, governing the Catholics there spiritually by delegation; and nothing but the state of persecution in which the Catholics lived for the last 300 years would have justified its continuance. That was his answer to the question—"If it is a tenet of the Catholic religion, that a regularly constituted hierarchy should be established, why have the Catholics of England remained so long without it?" He answered, persecution caused it. For the last 300 years the Catholics of that country were anxious to obtain the restoration of their hierarchy. In the reign of Elizabeth, they petitioned the Pope for it. They were refused, because there were then strong hopes entertained that Elizabeth, who only ceased to be a Catholic because Catholic doctrine impugned her legitimacy, would yet come back into the faith she had abandoned. That hope was vain, and instead of even toleration there was persecution of a most fearful kind; and, during her reign, over 100 priests were hanged and quartered, because they had discharged in private their religious functions. Under such circumstances, it would be worse than useless—it would be dangerous—to restore the hierarchy. So it was, likewise, in the reign of James the First, particularly after the explosion of the Gunpowder Plot, though with that plot the Catholics, as a body, had nothing whatever to do. In the reign of Charles the First, it was equally useless to establish a Catholic hierarchy, during a period when the Puritans were in the ascendant. In Charles the Second's time, when the prejudices against Catholics, as developed by the Titus Oates Conspiracy, was as strong as it is now in the nineteenth century, the Catholics were scarcely permitted to breathe. The moment toleration was allowed them in James the Second's time, the Catholics at once petitioned for the restoration of their hierarchy; and, at his request, they stated to the King the reasons why they sought the change; and they described clearly the distinction between a regular hierarchy and a vicariate-apostolic. So desirous, on religious grounds, were the Catholics for their ecclesiastical government in England, that their petition would have been then granted, but for the political changes which shortly afterwards took place. In the following reigns, up to George the Third, the very evidence of Roman Catholics was ignored by the law; and they could only practise their religion in secret, and the clergy chiefly discharged their functions in private houses. During that long period, it was idle to attempt the establishment of any thing like a regular church government. But it may be asked, if the Catholics so ardently desired the restoration of the hierarchy, why is it, when toleration was first allowed their religion in George the Third's reign, they did not seek for it? The answer is simple: the Catholics were then extremely few, and scattered thinly over the country. They were generally extremely poor, moreover. They could not maintain, by the voluntary system, a secular clergy. Under the vicariate or missionary system, the regular clergy had the same faculties as the secular—under a hierarchy duly constituted they had no parochial or secular faculties except by permission of the diocesan. The regular clergy were numerous, and had means of support from their convents and from endowments, independently of their flocks. It was, therefore, wise, while the Catholic population was small, to preserve to the regular clergy the faculties which, in a hierarchy, belong only to the secular. But when, by means of cheap and rapid communication with Ireland, the Catholics in England swelled to a million—when it was found there were as many Catholics in London as there was in Rome itself—when Liverpool had its hundred thousand, and Manchester its fifty thousand Catholic citizens—then the time arrived when, for the welfare of religion, a large supply of secular clergy was required. But under the vicars-apostolic, that supply could not be had, because the secondary clergy had no rights, had no protection. The priest residing for years at Birmingham or at Manchester, for instance, may, without the slightest cause or excuse, be deprived of his faculties, or removed from the scene of his spiritual labours, where he was beloved and respected. That was no imaginary case; it had actually occurred. Under a hierarchy, when canonical institution was granted, the secular clergy were fully protected, and, of course, being so fully protected, men in abundance would be ready to undertake the labours. He agreed with the hon. Member for Youghal, that if the change of ecclesiastical government which had lately been introduced, stopped short of canonical institution for the secondary clergy, and remained as it was, giving independent rights and powers to the bishops, freeing them from the control of the Pope, and yet giving the secondary order no security against the irresponsible exercise of their (the bishops') authority, then it would be better no such change had taken place. But he had reason to believe that it was fully intended to carry out to its full development the restored hierarchy, notwithstanding the threat of the noble Lord again to introduce further repressive legislation against religious liberty in case any such attempt was made; and, in justice to Cardinal Wiseman, he would add, that no man was more anxious than he was to give protection to the second order, for he knew without it religion would be seriously damaged. Thus, then, this change, which for centuries was looked for, has taken place at the time most needed for the spiritual welfare of an enormously increasing population. All that is sought for by the Roman Catholics is the free exercise of a tenet of their religion—a tenet, be it remembered, that was permitted to be exercised in the most persecuting periods of English history. Episcopal jurisdiction was allowed—the parcelling out by the Pope of the country into districts was permitted ever since James's time. Bishops wholly dependent on the Pope, and having more than ordi- nary jurisdiction, without molestation, exercised those powers. All that is now done is, that according to the ordinary rule the same bishops should be named to the sees or districts they have so long governed—that they should have nothing but canonical authority, and be more independent of the Pope; and because of this most necessary change for spiritual purposes, the country has been convulsed from end to end, and the noble Lord justifies the attack he makes against religious liberty. The noble Lord, in last Wednesday's debate, said— that if the spiritual authority claimed had been confined to the Roman Catholics, we should have nothing to complain of. On that statement he would claim from the noble Lord an abandonment of his measure. He (Mr. Fagan) had shown that it was purely for spiritual purposes the change was effected. Every Catholic, lay or clerical, says the same. He would call upon the noble Lord to act up to the statement he made, and before it is too late, to retrace his steps. He called upon him to retract the offensive observations he made in his too celebrated letter. Was the noble Lord justified because of that act of the Pope, to apply the word "insolent" to the spiritual head of nearly a quarter of the human race?—was he justified by this act of spiritual authority to call the Pope's conduct "insidious?" He (Mr. Fagan) knew well to what the noble Lord alluded. He imagined that the Pope was desirous to take advantage of the existing distractions in the Church of England, in order to gain over, more converts to his faith. Now he (Mr. Fagan) never attached much consequence to these conversions. He thought that the mass of mankind, without inquiry, or being indifferent, would remain in the faith they were born and educated in; and that if there was to be any large secession from the Established Church, it would be in the opposite direction from the Catholic Church. Protestants were taught to judge for themselves in matters of religion—they denied authoritative teaching—it was therefore natural to suppose, if they left the Episcopal Church, it would be to join those who held that bishops and clergy with large endowments were not necessary, and that they could work out their salvation without the aid of paid pastors. That was a common-sense view of the matter; and he felt convinced that, instead of acting an insidious part for the purpose of interfering with the Established Church, his Holiness was solely occupied in securing the spiritual welfare of his own people. Was, he would ask again, the noble Lord justified by this spiritual act of the Pope in telling the people of England, the day before the 5th of November last, when such insulting scenes were seen in that metropolis, and as if to excite their rancorous animosity, that the Pope sought to put "his fetters" on them? The noble Lord is well versed in history. If he has read history correctly, and without prejudice, he must admit that, as a general rule, the spiritual authority of the Pope, or, in other words, the Catholic religion, was not employed to put fetters on the liberties of mankind. On the contrary, were not the clergy of that religion, in almost every instance, with the people, and for the people? Did they not, in all times and in all countries, principally belong to the people; and, deriving their power and influence from opinion, did they not stand by and sustain the masses from whom that influence proceeded? Who was it won Magna Charta for that country?—was it not principally Archbishop Langton and his clergy? What does Mr. Macaulay, a member of the present Government, in his History, say of the influence of the Catholic religion on civil liberty. He says— It is remarkable that the two greatest and most salutary social revolutions which have taken place in England, that revolution which, in the thirteenth century, put an end to the tyranny of nation over nation, and that revolution which, a few generations later, put an end to the property of man in man, were silently and imperceptibly effected…… It would be most unjust not to acknowledge that the chief agent in these two great deliverances was religion, and it may be, perhaps, doubted whether a purer religion might not have been found a less efficient agent. Such was the opinion of a Whig historian respecting this fetter-forging religion. As to his opinion as to the purity of the Catholic faith, it was of little value, and was beside the question. Does the noble Lord, he would again ask, know who first promulgated the old Whig maxim now forgotten or disowned—"the sovereignty of the people?" Why, it was that maligned society the Jesuits; and who was it that upheld the divine right of Kings as opposed to that maxim? Why, their polemical adversaries of the Established Church; and yet the noble Lord would tell the people of England that the Pope, as personifying the Catholic religion, sought to put fetters on their liberties and their intellects. And here he (Mr. Pagan) must be permitted to express regret at the introduction into debate of the most unfounded imputations on the Catholic religion. He had hoped that these unfounded statements would have been confined to country meetings. He had hoped that the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) would have been contented with the letter he had addressed to his constituents, which was but one mass of misrepresentation, and that he would not have reproduced some of his statements in that House. The hon. Member was altogether mistaken respecting the canon law. Any existing canon which was opposed to the municipal law of any country was not binding on the subjects in that country, and could not be introduced into it unless it was a canon affecting faith and doctrine; and as all faith and doctrine were based on divine revelation, such canon could not have any but a spiritual and salutary effect. True, there were canons which were not suited to the present times, and were framed to meet the exigencies of religion in former days, and to put down, as in the case of the Albigenses, doctrines of the most criminal, unnatural, and antisocial character. But these canons were obsolete as much as any forgotten statute of the first William or Edward, notwithstanding the assertion to the contrary of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Page Wood); and when he was told in the face of the House of Commons by the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) the Member for Bath, that a Catholic might, with spiritual impunity, violate his oath if the welfare of his religion was concerned, he repelled with indignation the statement, and he referred to the conduct of Catholics when excluded from civil rights by reason of their respect to the sanctity of an oath; and he referred to the conduct of Catholic States, in their treaties and engagements with this country, to show how groundless was so painful an imputation. All he demanded was, that the Roman Catholics should be judged by the doctrines they really held, and not by those imputed to them. Let hon. Members look to the evidence given by Dr. Doyle and Archbishops Murray and Curtis in 1825, and judge of Catholic doctrine by that evidence. By that evidence, he, for one, was willing to abide. He thought he had sufficiently established the fact, that, in England, nothing but spiritual authority over the Roman Catholics was intended by the Pope. He would now turn to Ireland, and would ask, why does the noble Lord extend his measure to Ireland? Because, forsooth, of the appointment, out of the ordinary rule, of Archbishop Cullen, and because of the holding of a national synod in that country. Now, national synods or councils are part and parcel of the ecclesiastical government of the Church; and, without an infringement of religious liberty, they cannot be prevented. The noble Lord imagines he knows what the synod assembled for, though the decrees of that synod are unknown, and will remain unknown to any but the bishops themselves until sanctioned by the Pope. The address to which the noble Lord referred was, it was true, adopted by the bishops assembled at Thurles; but, as it had not the sanction of the Pope, it could not be considered a decree of the national council. But the noble Lord justified his extension of his measure to Ireland on two passages in that address: one, consisting of fourteen lines, having reference to the unfortunate relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. Now, considering what a vital, a life-and-death, question that was to the people—considering the position the Catholic bishops held in respect to their impoverished and crushed flocks—considering the miseries endured the last four years, he did not think it surprising that those who eminently possessed the confidence of the people, should, in a solemn address, give them earnest and truthful advice. As to the college question, though he had always steadily supported those provincial colleges, as demanded by the educational wants of the middle class, he still maintained that the bishops had a perfect right to interfere. Education was a part of religion. At least, as the noble Lord himself had maintained last Session, all education should be based on religion; and, therefore, it became a duty of the bishops to interfere, if they thought faith and morals at all in danger. And yet this was the ground alleged by the noble Lord for the intrusion of his measure into Ireland. What was that measure, as expounded by the Attorney General? Why, it not only extended the existing law as respects episcopal titles, to those holding sees in which there were no Protestant bishops, for in that case it would be simply legislation against the Archbishop of Tuam, who alone, of the Catholic hierarchy, assumed the title, but also went to paralyse the episcopacy, to use the Attorney General's own phraseology—it went to prevent synodical action in the Church—it rendered void and illegal every act done by a bishop assuming territorial title. Now, there is, and has been for centuries, a regular hierarchy in Ireland: that hierarchy cannot exist without bishops having territorial titles of the sees over which they have jurisdiction. They cannot appoint a parish priest, or give faculties, but in the capacity of bishop of the diocese, and having jurisdiction therein. Hence, if the Bill of the Government pass into law, all marriages by the Catholic clergy will, be illegal, and the clergy not being legally ordained, having received ordination from a bishop assuming a territorial title, will be eligible to be returned to Parliament, and at the next general election, the question would in that form be put to the test. The noble Lord said, in Wednesday's debate— That if in the discussion of this Bill, it can be shown in any way that religious liberty is infringed on, he (Lord John Russell) would be ready to discuss the point, and remove any words with which the worship of the Roman Catholic religion was interfered with. Now, he (Mr. Fagan) had shown how it would be interfered with, by paralysing the episcopacy in the manner contemplated. But, it might be said, let the bishops in Ireland become vicars-apostolic, and then there would be no such difficulty—no such paralysis. Does the noble Lord imagine, that after having resisted the persecutions of Henry, and Elizabeth, and Anne, and maintained unbroken their hierarchy, the Catholics will now quietly submit to such a change? He would tell him they never would. The clergy in Ireland obeyed faithfully the law, when it gave "to Cæsar, the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that were God's." But when the law of God came into collision with the law of man, as Dr. Ullathorne had told the noble Lord, the first must be obeyed in preference to the last. He (Mr. Fagan) warned the noble Lord of the consequence. He was about to light up a flame which could not be easily extinguished. The noble Lord was once for reducing the Church Establishment, and appropriating a portion of its revenues to national purposes. Now he was, it seems, in love with that establishment, and would not touch a shilling of its half million of revenue. Let him tell the noble Lord that he was about to rouse up a frightful agitation against that establishment. The Irish people will never submit to have their "national religion," as it was called by the Duke of Wellington and Sir James Graham, paralysed in its spiritual action, and at the same time allow the Protestant Church to enjoy the fruits of their industry. In 1836, 400,000 armed men had nearly succeeded in crushing the tithe system. It still exists in the form of rentcharge; but with the excitement which the noble Lord is about to produce, with clergy and laity united, it will not long stand another attack. He warned the noble Lord to retrace his steps in time. Inside and outside that House there was danger a-head. He (Mr. Fagan) had always given him, when he consistently could, independent support; he had voted at his side last night, and thereby ran the risk of having his vote misapprehended, and his popularity endangered. He would, however, tell him that if he persisted in the measure he now sought to introduce, he would, whenever he could conscientiously do so—for he never would do evil that good may come of it—assist to overthrow a Government that was recreant to its past professions, and had forgotten or thrown over the glorious principle of religious liberty.

MR. F. PEEL,

said, he entirely concurred in the sentiment which had been more than once expressed in the course of this discussion, in which they had been now engaged for three days, that the debate was somewhat premature, somewhat vague and discursive in the range of its topics, and that it would have been carried on with greater advantage if they had first waited till they had been able to ascertain in all its bearings and in all its details the measure propounded by the noble Lord, and which he had moved for leave to introduce. And in the observations which he would venture, with the permission of the House, to make, it was not his intention to anticipate the line of conduct which he would take with respect to this Bill in the further stages of its progress through the House, ignorant, as he was, of the particular nature of the provisions of the Bill, and of the extent to which they were likely to be operative. But there were some points connected with that subject which were, he thought, independent of the particular manner in which the Bill might be framed, and to which he was desirous of confining his observations as well as he could. Now, the Bill had had, as the noble Lord anticipated, the ill luck of satisfying neither side of the House; at least as far as the lower portion of the House was concerned. Hon. Gentlemen on that (the Government) side of the House considered the provisions of the Bill went beyond the necessity and emergency of the occasion. Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House considered that they did not come up to the emergency. Now, he had no intention to make any observations in reference to the course taken by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House; but hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House had in the course of their speeches contrasted the measure of the noble Lord with the speech with which he had prefaced the introduction and explanation of that measure, and also with the indignant spirit which had obviously dictated the letter addressed to the Bishop of Durham. They thanked him for his speech, they thanked him for his letter; but his Bill, if they accepted it at all, they accepted only as an instalment of what was due to them. Now, he was not surprised that hon. Gentlemen who had at the numerous meetings throughout the country argued this question with so much warmth and with so much sincerity during the recess as an attack on our liberties, as an assault on the supremacy and prerogatives of the Crown, as an insult to the Church of England and to her bishops, should feel some little disappointment that a question which they had argued on so extended a basis should be reduced into the narrow dimensions of a Bill for the purpose of extending and enlarging the provisions of a section of the Roman Catholic Belief Act of 1829. But he protested against this question being argued in that House as if it had been prejudged by the sense of the country, however united the voice of the country might have been. He thought their functions there were something more than simply to endorse the opinions pronounced by the country. They were bound, as they were able, to discuss that question for themselves; and the question which they had, as he conceived, to consider, was whether the provocation which had been given by the Court of Rome—and he would not deny there had been provocation—nay, more, he condemned as much as any man could do the un-Christian and uncharitable spirit, the arrogant and haughty tone which pervaded every line of the pastoral letter and of the letters apostolical—but the question was, as it appeared to him to be, whether that provocation did justify the interposition of any legislative enactment; and if it did, whether any measure could be framed of a more binding and stringent character than that which the noble Lord had announced his intention of introducing, without infringing on that which they all professed themselves, as he believed, sincerely desirous to maintain inviolate—the sanctity of religious liberty. He should indeed be extremely sorry to underrate the importance or misapprehend the significancy of those meetings which had taken place in the country, but to his mind the real value they possessed was not in the House taking them as a measure of the severity of their legislation, but in the circumstance that they had seen a great and overwhelming majority of the people meeting together and placing on record the expression of their firm and unshaken attachment to the Protestant religion as by law established. And it was not merely that circumstance, but they had also seen Protestant Dissenters as well as Protestants of the Church of England, as he believed, under the influence of feelings to which the hon. Member for Manchester had adverted when he said that they saw in the proceedings taken by the Court of Rome an indication of an opinion there entertained, that the Roman Catholic religion was about to make great and rapid strides in this country—they had seen them, he thought, meeting together under the influence of such feelings, for the purpose, in a time of doubt and of perplexity, of reassuring one another, by entering into a joint resolution to stand by the great principles of the Reformation, which he thought they now could certify the people considered the cause of truth, the cause of a pure religion, and of an uncorrupted faith indissolubly bound up together with and connected. Now, as to the Bill of the noble Lord, whatever might be its merits, he thought it could not claim the merit of being a permanent and comprehensive settlement of the question. It certainly had not that merit, and the noble Lord did not lay claim to it. The Attorney General had told them his only object was to afford a remedy for a specific offence or evil of which he complained, and he said also that he thought in taking that course he was acting on a wise and sound maxim of politics. That might be a very wise and sound maxim; but, at the same time, he thought it could not be disputed that it would be very desirable the position of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, in its relations to the Government and to the people, should be placed on such a footing as to render it impossible to have any recurrence of the agitation and tumult through which the country had lately passed. But those who recommended that arrangement had generally in contemplation some such scheme as that which had been discussed from the time of the Union to the passing of the Relief Act of 1829. He had heard the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Grattan) allude to the Bill of 1813, and say that if that measure had received the sanction of the Legislature, it would have avoided many of the heartburnings we had lately experienced. The question was considered at the time of the passing of the Relief Bill of 1829. At that time they were about to deprive the Church of England of those securities—if they were securities—which she had till then enjoyed, in the closing of every avenue to office and franchise against the Roman Catholic; and they had then to consider if they would substitute any other securities in place of those which they were about to abrogate. Well, he thought they then took a wise and sound course; they were aware that a communication had always been carried on with the Court of Rome, which was, indeed, rendered necessary by the community which existed between the See of Rome and the Catholic Church in this country. They determined to leave that communication entirely free and uncontrolled, and trusted to the loyalty and good faith of the Catholics that it would not be made an instrument of political intrigue, nor be permitted to interfere with the internal and domestic temporal concerns of the country. And they had dealt in the same way with the hierarchy of that Church. Government said, we have no desire to have any voice in the nomination or selection of the bishops of the Church of Rome. They trusted in the good sense of the Pope, that he would not consent to the nomination of persons who had rendered themselves by turbulent and disloyal conduct distasteful to the people of this country; and he thought the noble Lord had pointed out very clearly the inconvenience and embarrassment which would result from the adoption of any different course; and he had heard with satisfaction that the noble Lord had no intention of interfering in either of these respects with the internal organisation of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, with respect to the measure before them, there were two points on which he felt very strongly, and by which he would be in a very great mea- sure actuated in the course he would adopt. The points in question were the position of the Roman Catholic in this country, and the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church. With respect to the former point, reference might be made to the abstract question of law; but we had seen that not much value was to be attached to this consideration, for the Government had declined to prosecute under an Act of Parliament, not because there was anything ambiguous, faltering, or hesitating in the language of the Act, but because it had become obsolete, no recent precedents of prosecution having occurred under its provisions. But, setting aside the abstract question of law, it must be admitted that, as the matter now stood, to all intents and purposes, Roman Catholics might, with perfect impunity, recognise in the Pope of Rome, and the Pope might exercise in this country a spiritual and ecclesiastical authority as far as the Roman Catholics were concerned. There were persons, he knew, who thought the adoption of an opinion of this kind hardly consistent with the oath of supremacy taken by Protestant Members at the table of that House. For his part, he was able to take that oath with a very clear conscience, and yet maintain this opinion. He would not take refuge in the construction which some put on the form of words contained in the oath, namely, that it amounted only to a declaration that the Pope had no jurisdiction which could be legally enforced. What he conceived the words called upon them in their consciences to affirm was, that the spiritual headship over the Church claimed by the Court of Rome, was a claim unsound in sense and scripture. It happened, however, that a great body of our fellow-subjects held a different opinion. For a long time we persecuted them for holding that opinion. But times were changed, and Roman Catholics had been admitted to all the privileges of British subjects; but that circumstance would not prevent him from maintaining, as he was bound to do, the doctrine that the Pope had no authority, and ought to have none, within this realm. With respect to the second point, namely, the constitution of the Church of Rome, it appeared that it was essentially an episcopal church. It was placed entirely under the government of men who claimed a divine mission for their authority. These men composed the hierarchy of the Church of Rome; and if you prevented that church from having the grade of bishops, the gradation of the hierarchy would be incomplete, and unquestionably the liberty of the Roman Catholic Church would be encroached on. It was argued that the vicars-apostolic who had governed the Roman Catholic Church in this country for the last 200 years were bishops, and capable of discharging any of the spiritual functions appertaining to the office of a bishop. But were the bishops of the Church of Rome nothing more than mere depositaries of a preternatural power over the administration of sacraments, or in the discharge of other spiritual functions? Did they not believe that they had also, by divine institution, a power of governing the society over which they presided—a power, in short, of ecclesiastical jurisdiction? It was impossible to deny that some ecclesiastical jurisdiction belonged to the Roman Catholic bishops. Every religious society must have some power to administer its ecclesiastical concerns, and we knew that for the last 100 years the ecclesiastical concerns of the Roman Catholic Church in this country had been administered by vicars-apostolic under the constitution contained in the brief of Pope. Benedict XIV. So that all the change which had taken place recently was the substitution of the code of the Church, the canon law, for the temporary and provisional constitution under which its affairs had hitherto been administered. If the government by bishops in ordinary was necessary for the administration of the canon law, he could see no just cause of complaint in the Pope constituting the diocesan form of government for the purpose of administering that law. "But," said the noble Lord at the head of the Government, "when we examine the Act by which the dioceses are formed, and episcopal government constituted, then we find how utterly inconsistent it is with the liberties of the country and the rights of the Crown." For what has the Pope done? He, a foreign Power, has assumed the privilege of raising certain towns in this country to the rank of cities, of erecting those cities into sees or seats of episcopal authority, filling those sees with bishops nominated by himself, authorising them to assume titles derived from the designation of the places where their churches are set up, and assigning to them districts or dioceses over which they were to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The noble Lord further said, that the assumption of the titles thus given—titles conferring rank, dignity, and precedence—was an invasion of the rights of the Sovereign, who was invested by the constitution of the country with the solo prerogative of conferring titles of honour and dignity. The noble Lord, however, did not confine his objection to the mere assumption of ecclesiastical titles; he also complained of the country being parcelled out into dioceses. Upon this point the noble Lord said that the public law of Europe was on his side, and that it prohibited the Pope from creating dioceses in a country without the sanction of the sovereign of that country. But he (Mr. Peel) was not satisfied upon this point, namely, whether the public law referred to by the noble Lord had not grown up to determine the international relations between the Court of Rome and those Roman Catholic countries only where the religion of Rome was established absolutely, and where the rights of bishops and clergy, and of the clergy and laity respectively, were guaranteed by law. It was obvious that in that case a foreign Power could not dispense with the law of a country which had received the sanction of the Government of that country. But see the evil of legislating on this subject. Go a little way and your Act is impotent; make it more than a dead letter, and you go too far. The Attorney General told the House he had good grounds for believing that the direct consequence of his Bill would be to prevent synodical action. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he made that statement on the authority of an allegation in Cardinal Wiseman's Appeal; but, if that were the only authority he had for making the statement, it might be doubted whether the resources of the Roman Catholic Church would be so easily exhausted, and whether they would not find some means of evading the provisions of the Bill. It was stated that some evil had already been experienced in Ireland, and that similar evil might be expected to result in this country from the Roman Catholic laity being subjected to the provisions of the canon law; and the noble Member for Bath dwelt with particular emphasis on the fact that one of the avowed objects of the constitution of the diocesan form of government in this country was the introduction of the code of the Roman Catholic Church—the canon law; and with great research he brought to light a number of passages from that code—a code, be it recollected, which Lord Stowell, sitting as an ecclesiastical judge in the Consistory Court of London, eulogised as a system deeply founded in the wisdom of man—the noble Member for Both cited several passages from the canon law certainly of a very uncharitable and reprehensible character, chiefly with the view of showing that the tenor of that law was opposed to the spirit and genius of the common law. But the real question was, what was the sanction for the canon law in this country? Was submission to the provisions of the canon law merely voluntary? There was a great difference between the canon law and the ecclesiastical law in this country. We had incorporated the ecclesiastical law into our law, and the civil power gave effect and sanction to the decisions of its tribunals. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford contrasted the conduct of the Pope in introducing the canon law into this country with the course taken by our consuls in the Levant and other Mahommedan countries, where they administered foreign law differing from the municipal law of those districts. And he showed that treaty stipulations were the conditions under which the consuls administered that foreign law in the Levant. In our case the Pope had not received the consent of the Crown by diplomatic arrangement, or in any other way, to the introduction of the code of the Church; whereas the consular jurisdiction was exercised by the consent of the Powers in whose territory the consuls were stationed. But he (Mr. Peel) could show to the House there was no analogy between the two cases. The reason why consular jurisdiction in the Levant was exercised under the stipulations of a treaty, was because the decisison of the consular tribunal might be enforced, if necessary, by the aid of the civil power of the country. [The hon. Member read an extract from a treaty between Russia and Denmark in support of this view of the question.] He greatly doubted the policy of protecting the Roman Catholic laity from the provisions of a code to which they paid only a voluntary submission. Reference had been made to the inconvenience experienced from synodical action. We had seen bishops of the Irish Roman Catholic Church meeting together for the purpose of exerting their power to the utmost to frustrate that beneficent Act of the Legislature which opened to the middle classes of that country an opportunity which, he trusted, they would not be deterred from availing themselves of, of giving to their children the advantage of a sound education in every branch of literature and science, without exposing them to the slightest taint as regarded their tenets, morality, or their religious doctrines. He condemned that improper interference, seeing that we had recognised, at last, education as a great moral agent—as a great security for the stability and permanence of our institutions. But, if we wished to oppose the introduction and administration of the canon law—if we thought we could, by the Bill about to be introduced, prevent synodical action, he greatly feared we had miscalculated our resources—he greatly doubted whether we should not be found destitute of the ability to carry out what we were desirous to effect—and that, finally, we should regret having furnished another illustration proving how utterly powerless the heavy arm of temporal power was in dealing with the voluntary submission of the mind—in dealing with those questions—imaginary sentiments as they were called by some hon. Member—which resided within the precincts of the conscience. One word on the theological part of the question, for it assumed a twofold aspect, in part political, and in part theological. Unquestionably there had been a virtual denial or non-recognition of the Church of England, and of its claim to be deemed a branch of the great Catholic Church. We had been told that our bishops were no bishops, that our clergy were no clergy, and that our services and sacraments had no more binding force and virtue, than as mere civil ordinances and regulations of the State. These allegations had doubtless exercised a strong influence on the minds of many persons; but, for his part, he did not desire his view of the question to be influenced by any considerations of that kind. He did not wish to trust to any Act of Parliament for the vindication of the Anglican Church. He relied with great confidence on the power of controversial writings—on the power of appeals to the good sense of the people—on the power which we had of demonstrating that the pretension of the Church of Rome to spiritual headship was not only claimed without warrant in Scripture, but was utterly opposed to it. The present time was marked by no feeling of indifference to the Church of England and the extension of her influence. The opinion, perhaps, might not be shared by many, but he was strongly impressed with the conviction that at no period—and this was, in a great measure, owing to the absence of legislative restrictions—at no epoch of her past history was the Church of England, notwithstanding the differences and dissensions prevailing in her bosom—notwithstanding the efforts of those who were labouring to overlay the simplicity of the Common Prayer-book with ritual and ceremonial observances not in consonance with the spirituality that characterised Protestant worship—notwithstanding the efforts of those who were labouring to give the clergy the character of an intercessorial and mediatorial priesthood which did not belong to them—notwithstanding all these unfavourable circumstances, his conviction was that the Church of England was never more deeply grounded in the affections of the great bulk of the people than at this moment. Looking around him, and observing in every direction the zealous co-operation of the clergy and laity in building and endowing schools, erecting churches, and making provision for the spiritual instruction of the people, he could not close his mind against the conviction that the Church of England was well founded in the affections of the English people. Whatever might have been the necessities of her past position, experience had shown that she could maintain her ground without the aid of artificial support—nay, that she could not only maintain her ground, but make way against rival religious denominations, and that she was daily drawing within her pale an ever-widening circle of the people of this country. The Church of England had nothing whatever to fear from the Church of Rome. The principles on which our Church rested—he meant the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone, and the right of every man to the exercise of his own judgment in their interpretation—rendered her impregnable to the assaults of Rome; and he confessed he saw nothing in what had lately passed in this country to warrant a departure from that wise and prudent course of granting full toleration to every denomination of religious association in this country, which the Church of England, with a true appreciation of her own interest, and with a clear insight into what was most conducive to her real welfare, had, tardily it might be, but still, as he believed at last, heartily, consented to recognise.

SIR J. DUKE

felt under great disadvantage in addressing the House at all times; and that disadvantage was certainly not lessened on the present occasion by his rising as he did immediately after the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. Indeed, had he consulted merely his own feelings, he would gladly have contented himself with giving a silent vote on the present question; but, having the honour to represent an important constituency, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Manchester, he felt it necessary to say a few words with which he hoped the House would indulge him. But, before he referred to the observations of the hon. Member for Manchester, he begged to say, that something like an unfair censure had been cast upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government for the letter which he had addressed to the Bishop of Durham. It had been said, that that letter had been the means of occasioning the meetings which had taken place in London and throughout the country, and that the noble Lord being in want of "political capital," found it necessary to call upon the people to come forward and resist Papal aggression. Now, the noble Lord had been that night misrepresented, unintentionally, no doubt, by the hon. Member for Cork, for that hon. Gentleman said that the noble Lord published his letter the day before the 5th of November, with the view of exciting the city on the occasion of the annual processions. Now, he (Sir J. Duke) happened to be abroad at the time that letter was published; but, on his return, he took the opportunity of going over the public papers to see what course the city of London and the public had taken upon this important question in his absence; and he found that, so early as the 14th of October, nearly the whole of the newspapers of the capital had united in calling upon the public and the Government to resist the Papal aggression. He found articles to the same effect in those papers on the 21st and 22nd of October. On the 23rd appeared a letter from a gentleman at Exeter, desiring to know whether the noble Lord and the Government supported the appointment of Dr. Wiseman. On the 25th, the clergy of Westminster met, and addressed the Bishop of London. On the 30th, the inhabitants of the important parish of St. George, in the metropolis, met for the same object. On the 31st, the London clergy also met, and addressed the Bishop. On the 28th, a reply appeared to the Exeter letter, from the secretary of the Premier, to the effect that neither directly nor indirectly had the noble Lord sanctioned the appointment of Dr. Wiseman, neither had the Earl of Minto encouraged or sanctioned the transaction. On the 2nd of November, he found that the great parish of Marylebone, in vestry assembled, protested against the Papal aggression. He found also that the parish of Stepney met about the same time, and that similar meetings were held at Gloucester, Canterbury, Dover, Deal, Southampton, Worcester, Reading, and other places—all before the appearance of the noble Lord's letter. That letter appeared only on the 7th of November, so that it was an error to say that it was published on the 4th for the purpose of exciting the public on the following day. On the 7th of November took place the meeting of the corporation of London; but he could assure the House that the noble Lord's letter had nothing to do with that meeting, which was held on the usual day, and had been summoned a week before. Being a member of that corporation, he was unwilling to say anything about its proceedings, except to remind the House that they had the high honour of approaching the Sovereign on great and important occasions; and, although he had been twenty years connected with the corporation, he never remembered its availing itself of that privilege except in the present instance; and he presumed that nothing but the consideration that it was a case of unusual importance would have induced them to do so. But, although he would say nothing more of the proceedings of the corporation, he might be allowed to refer to the great and important meeting of bankers, merchants, and traders of the city of London. Among other meetings which had taken place threughout the country, there was one, he believed, of the enlightened constituents of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who had not only addressed the Queen, but had passed a vote of thanks to the noble Lord. Now, those meetings had been described as the result of intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry. He (Sir J. Duke) did not know whether that was the case or not; but he believed that if those addresses to the Queen had been petitions to the House of Commons in support of some favourite scheme of free-trade policy, certain hon. Members would have talked loudly enough of the dignity of the ancient corporation of London, the great weight of the merchants, bankers, and traders of the first commercial city in the world, and the intelligent and irresistible voice of the country. He did not know what might be the result of this debate; but he was quite certain, that by whatever combination of parties the measure might ultimately be defeated, the feeling of the country would rally round the noble Lord and his Government, and, in the language of the magnificent speech with which the noble Lord had introduced the measure, would show them that they were ready to resist the Papal aggression "in all points and with all their power." With regard to the remarks which the hon. Member for Manchester had made respecting the Rev. Dr. Russell, he begged to say that he had known that reverend gentleman for many years, and that a more upright, exemplary, and pious clergyman could, not be found in the Church or in the country; and, when he found his name mentioned as having had recourse to or sanctioned the exactions which had taken place in a meeting-house in his parish, he felt it due to him to say, that he had no more to do with that transaction than the hon. Member himself; and that the persons who were alone responsible for it were the parochial authorities acting under a warrant from one of the magistrates of the city of London, than whom he would venture to say there was no set of men more kind or considerate in the discharge of such delicate and difficult duties.

MR. BARING WALL

said, he was anxious to offer a few observations before he followed the unusual course of opposing the introduction of a Government measure, which he thought needed some discussion. The whole course of the life of the noble Lord at the head of the Government ought to have made him remember that when irritating and exciting topics were introduced into a measure of this nature, it was not very probable that any stage of it would be allowed to pass without a debate ending in a division. A great deal had been said about the feeling on this subject in the country. Doubtless the meetings had been numerous; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Leominster in thinking that the effect of the demonstrations was to show the value the people attached to the right of private judgment, and their readiness to come forward when there existed the remotest idea that the prerogatives of the Crown would be invaded. We seemed to have concealed from ourselves the fact that the Roman Catholic religion was unchangeable. It ought always to be considered, in dealing with this question, that there were only two ways in which the Pope could act in the case of Protestant States which were foolish enough to have a concordat with him, namely, either by excommunicating them, or by ignoring their existence; and he need not say that the Pope had adopted the most gracious of those two modes of proceeding towards the noble Lord. He at least wished he could congratulate the noble Lord that his Bill would amount to a minimum of interference; but he was bound to declare, after having heard the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that it amounted to the maximum of persecution, because he knew of no persecution so grating to individuals as that bit-by-bit persecution, the extent of which they were never to know, and which was to be dealt out to them according to the amount of mental reservation they displayed. If they had much of mental reservation, they were to have little persecution; if the were bold, honest, true, and faithful Catholics the persecution was to be proportionately increased. He called the Bill of the noble Lord an aggressive measure, because, without saying who threw the first stone, it was the first Parliamentary measure of aggression that had been introduced since 1829. It was hostile to all the noble Lord's previous declarations; and he must say, that if the noble Lord had changed his opinions, as he had, of course, a perfect right to do, he was, at any rate, bound to acquaint those who were in the habit of supporting him with the change which was gradually taking place in his own mind; and he would go further, and say that he more particularly ought to have told his old friend and ally, the Pope, with whom he appeared formerly to have been on terms of intimacy and confidence, what an alteration his views were undergoing. It appeared to him that the conduct of the Pope in this case was exceedingly natural. He could imagine his Holiness sitting in an arm-chair in the Vatican, with every enjoyment about him except that of seeing the Times newspaper daily, a misfortune which, of course, he brought upon himself—he could imagine the Pope sitting there and saying to himself, "I look back into the history of the Irish Church, and I find that there has been an uninterrupted succession of Irish Catholic Bishops. I find from the pages of Hansard (for the Pope would doubtless have Hansard, though he had not the Times newspaper)—I know that my bishops in Ireland have always been treated with great deference and respect by the English Government. I know that titles are given them, that the entrée of the Court is allowed them, and that everything they ask is bestowed upon them. I find that the Queen's prerogative extends alike to England and Ireland, and I cannot conceive that it would be a greater insult to the Queen that I should have bishops in England, than that I should have bishops in Ireland. I don't expect, of course, my former friend and confidant to say that he entirely approves of my appointment of bishops and archbishops in England; but I know what his leanings are, and what his Government have uniformly done, and I don't anticipate any difficulty. I shall, therefore, issue my brief on the subject." He (Mr. Baring Wall) thought such would naturally be the feelings of the Pope: and he did not see how the noble Lord could well be surprised at what had occurred. The noble Lord had recanted what ho said in the years 1844, 1845, and 1846; but it was said that he had not recanted what he said in 1848, when, in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, he declared that he did not know that the Pope had authorised the creation of bishops and archbishops in England, but that he would not give his assent to the formation of any such dioceses, if asked, in the Queen's dominions. But, why had not the noble Lord at that time ascertained from the Earl of Minto whether any such intention existed on the part of the Pope? He (Mr. Baring Wall) contended, that after all the proceedings which had been going on, particularly in Ireland, since the passing of the Emancipation Act, it was a very natural notion for the Pope to entertain, that he could establish a hierarchy in this country. He denied that the opposition to the Pope had been much increased in this country by the conduct pursued since November last, by the English Protestant bishops, for we had never possessed more learned, more moderate, or wiser men than the present ecclesiastics of the English Church; and he did not believe that they had improperly interfered with the expression of public opinion. He thought there was considerable misapprehension in respect to the alleged progress of Roman Catholicism in this country and in Ireland. He did not believe in that increase. The other day the Protestant Bishop of Tuam was over in England collecting subscriptions for paying the cost of building six additional Protestant churches in Tuam; and it was said that in Tuam alone, within the last three years, there had been an increase of from 10,000 to 12,000 Protes tants. The hon. Member for Ayrshire had told them that his county had not petitioned in favour of these measures of the noble Lord; but the hon. Gentleman might have added the important fact, that scarcely any of the Scotch counties had petitioned Parliament upon the subject; and with regard to Tractarianism he might have stated also that though there were cases in Scotland in which those opinions were held, and where public worship was carried on in the same manner as that with which the noble Lord had been so well acquainted, yet not an instance was known of a Presbyterian in that country having been converted to those opinions. In the next remark which he was about to make, he felt that he should not carry with him the assent of the Prime Minister; but, with great deference to the noble Lord, he could not help saying that in religious matters Ultramontane opinions had been usually met, and must in general be encountered, by opinions of a more moderate character, and if the noble Lord needed any instances to convince him of that truth, he need only look through Hansard for the last ton years. Now, what were the reasons which the noble Lord gave for bringing forward such a Bill as was then before the House? Among these reasons he found the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the appointment of Dr. Cullen instead of some one else to the Roman Catholic Primacy of Ireland, the meetings and decisions of the Synod of Thurles; and because that body took into its consideration the occupation of land in Ireland, such a fact was made one of the grounds for introducing the measure now under consideration. But, surely, that did not form a sufficient reason for altering the political principles which the noble Lord had hitherto professed. In his opinion, the effect of such legislation would be to make every Roman Catholic a Jesuit, and every priest a spy. It was said that in the Bill of 1829 it was proposed to insert a clause very similar in effect to that which was now sought to be accomplished by the Bill of the noble Lord; but that proposition was not then successful, and it was not immaterial to observe that both the late Sir Robert Peel and the noble Lord opposed it. The wish, he believed, of the noble Lord once had been to govern without the aid of Bills of Pains and Penalties; but he regretted to observe that the noble Lord was now apparently giving up that principle. With regard to the present measure, he should say, before he sat down, that if the Bill were to become the law of the land, it should be sifted most carefully; but, whatever care might be bestowed on it, he did not hesitate to express his belief that in Ireland great difficulty would be found in carrying it into execution. The Irish Members of that House did not support the views taken by the noble Lord; and if he did not carry the measure with unanimity, it was to be feared that its operation in Ireland would prove unsuccessful. In his opinion it was a Bill that would redound neither to the safety of the State nor the peace of the country.

MR. GEORGE A. HAMILTON

said, that, previous to his offering any remarks upon the question before the House, he felt it to be his duty to notice some most extraordinary mis-statements which had been made by the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) on the last day of the debate. The first of these related personally to his (Mr. Hamilton's) Friend and Colleague. Mr. Napier had stated in the course of his speech, that whatever might have been his opinions on the question of emancipation, he retained those opinions; but that he had always declared, both in and out of the House, that he considered the measure of 1829 as settled, and that any legislation must be in accordance with the spirit and conditions on which that measure was granted. He (Mr. Hamilton) could not see in that statement anything that was calculated to provoke an invective, especially from a Roman Catholic Member. But the hon. Member for Athlone, with the view, as it appeared to him (Mr. Hamilton), of creating some feeling against Mr. Napier, had accused him of having been Secretary to the Brunswick Club of Ireland, and had stated that those clubs were established for the avowed purpose of setting the acts of the Legislature at defiance, if those acts went in the direction of emancipation, But the hon. and learned Member was wrong in both branches of his assertion. Mr. Napier had no recollection of having been Secretary to the Brunswick Club of Ireland. [Mr. KEOGH: Will he deny that he was?] He has no recollection of having been so; but neither is it the case that the Brunswick Clubs were established to set the laws at defiance. They were established certainly to oppose the carrying of emancipation; but it was by legal and constitutional means, and the Brunswick Clubs comprised the best and most loyal men in the country—men of the greatest eminence; and when the measure of 1829 had passed, the clubs no longer were maintained. Mr. Napier was honorary secretary of the Conservative Society of Ireland; but it was formed in 1832, for the purpose of giving stability to the institutions of the country by developing the resources of Ireland and ameliorating the condition of the people: and it had no reference to the measure of 1829. The next charge which the Member for Athlone had made against his (Mr. Hamilton's) Colleague, was of a more serious nature, both as regarded him personally, and because it affected the University of Dublin. Mr. Keogh had stated, in reference to a debate last year, that Mr. Napier had then declared that to his own knowledge it was a complete fiction to say that the Roman Catholics were excluded from the honours and emoluments of the University of Dublin. He (Mr. Keogh) had been petrified at that statement. He was a member of that university, and was prepared to show the utter hypocrisy of that statement. He could assure the House that there were no honours or emoluments to which he, a Roman Catholic, could hope to attain, but that of a sizarship, which imposed services and duties generally thought to be of a servile nature. The fellows had enormous revenues, of which no accurate account could be obtained. The junior fellows had enormous revenues, and no Roman Catholic could be a junior fellow. What was the meaning of Mr. Napier's allegation, when the Roman Catholics could be admitted to no honours but that of sizarship? The House would observe that this was very strong language, and very specific; "there were no honours or emoluments which a Roman Catholic could obtain but sizarships;" and his (Mr. Hamilton's) Colleague was accused of hypocrisy for saying that it was otherwise. Now, what were the facts of the case? He did not like to trouble the House with details, but he held them in his hand, and what was the result? Why, that there were honours, offices, and emoluments open to Roman Catholics of the annual value of 6,940l.; while the offices and emoluments not open to Roman Catholics, excluding the fellowships and scholarships, which formed the foundation, amounted to but 4,752l. annually; and among these were included the professorship of divinity, and a lecturership of divinity, which formed large items in the amount; and then with regard to the junior fellowships, whose incomes were said to be enormous, would the House believe that the incomes which each junior fellow derived from the college property was just 40l. Irish per annum. Whatever else they might have arose from tuition; the twenty-eight junior fellows had nearly 1,500 pupils to attend to; and he (Mr. Hamilton) might just as well inquire about or complain of the income which the Member for Athlone acquired by his ability in his profession at the bar, as that hon. Member to remark upon the income derived by the junior fellows from tuitions they obtained in consequence of their abilities and learning. The hon. Member for Athlone had also misrepresented the argument of Mr. Napier with regard to the distribution of patronage in Ireland. Mr. Napier had argued that the Pope had been encouraged in his aggression by the preference which had been given to Roman Catholics by Her Majesty's Government in Ireland. The Member for Athlone had answered this by enumerating the number of offices in the law department, and stating how many of these were filled by Protestants, and how many by Roman Catholics; but that was no answer to Mr. Napier's argument—the question was, how many of each had been appointed by the present Government? He (Mr. Hamilton) had always felt that this was a most unpleasant and invidious subject. For his own part he could sincerely declare that it never occurred to his mind to inquire whether a man who was the subject of Government patronage was a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. He had always felt, since the passing of the Emancipation Act, that no such question should be raised by Government in distributing their patronage. But then the public had a right to the services of the best man, be he Roman Catholic or be he Protestant. And what was complained of in Ireland was, that this was not the case. He (Mr. Hamilton) meant nothing in disparagement of the learned gentlemen who had been appointed by the present Government to high offices in the law; but people in Ireland naturally inquired why was Mr. Henn, why was Mr. Bennett passed over? No one could deny that they occupied the highest position at the bar. Neither of them were politicians; they had now retired from practice, and therefore he would speak of them. Would either of those men have been passed over, if they had happened to be Roman Catholics? His hon. Friend the Member for Meath had also made a statement which he was anxious to correct. He had said that Sir Edward Sugden, when Lord Chancellor of Ireland, had given his sanction to some report in which the late Archbishop Crolly had been termed Archbishop of Armagh. He (Mr. Hamilton) was authorised to state that this was not the case. It was well known that reports in a Master's office are drawn up by the attorneys of the party, and that the Lord Chancellor never sees those reports, nor any portion of them, except such parts as are brought before him for the purpose of argument. It is possible that in some report drawn by some solicitor, Archbishop Crolly may have been so designated; but it is not the case that the Lord Chancellor had any knowledge of it, or gave it his sanction. With regard to the question before the House, it was this, whether a case had been made out by Her Majesty's Government to justify the House in allowing a Bill to be introduced. He (Mr. Hamilton) had listened attentively to the debate, and had read many publications on the subject of the Papal aggression. It appeared to him to be established most conclusively, first, that the law of nations, at all events the law of all European nations, had been violated as regards this country by the proceedings of the Pope; secondly, that the spirit, if not the letter, of the law had been broken by those who had been engaged in carrying out the Pope's brief; and, further, that an indignity had been offered to the Queen's regality, and to the independence of this great empire. Under these circumstances he should, of course, vote for the introduction of the Bill. With regard to its provisions, he would say nothing at present; he thought it extremely objectionable to be discussing the provisions of a Bill by anticipation. He would only say that of all kinds of legislation he thought that to be the most objectionable which was at once vexatious and affronting in its spirit, and ineffective in its operation. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had been accused of departing from the principles on which he acted for so many years. It had been said of him that having been, heretofore, the great advocate of civil and religious liberty, he had now taken a retrograde course. Of course, it was not for him (Mr. Hamilton) to defend the noble Lord; but when the noble Lord, in defending himself against the charge, by saying that ho had found the confidence he had in Roman Catholics misplaced, it had certainly occurred to him (Mr. Hamilton) that the defence against the charge was unnecessary. The noble Lord, it is true, had spent a great part of his life, and acquired a great part of his political fame, in removing restrictions imposed in times past by Protestant Parliaments and Governments, and thereby advancing, according to the views of the noble Lord, the cause of civil and religious liberty; but there were other quarters, besides Protestant Parliaments and Governments, from which civil and religious liberty might be endangered. And he (Mr. Hamilton) was firmly convinced, that there never was a time when the noble Lord was more truly engaged in defending the principles of civil and religious liberty, than when he was engaged in resisting the aggressions of Papal domination, and defending the independence of this great empire.

MR. SADLEIR

said, he could not but admire the discretion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the city of London in not venturing to disturb those arguments so ably addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. F. Peel). But he thought that the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat, had been guilty of unparalleled rashness in undertaking the defence of his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Napier), which reminded him of the sage proverb, "Save me from my friends." Now the matter in dispute between the Member for the University (Mr. Napier) and the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) was of some importance, and it was desirable that the facts should be made apparent. The observations of which the hon. Member (Mr. Napier) complained, were not now made for the first time. He (Mr. Sadleir), in referring to the political antecedents of that hon. and learned Gentleman last Session, had charged him with having been, at one period of his life, in connexion with the Brunswick Clubs of Ireland. The assertion had never been contradicted or impugned by the hon. and learned Member from that clay to this. He (Mr. Sadleir) had alluded to the fact, not for the purposes of Parliamentary invective, but simply in order that he might be enabled to draw those deductions which it was fair and legitimate for a Member of that House to draw in the course of a Parliamentary debate. The hon. and learned Member for Athlone made his statement the other night in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for the University; and that hon. and learned Gentleman, who was silent at the time, now replied through the medium of his Colleague, by saying, that he had no re- collection of having been a secretary to the Brunswick Club. He (Mr. Sadleir) challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to deny the fact. He now asked the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the face of that House, whether he ever was secretary to a Brunswick Club? Whether he ever was a member of a Brunswick Club that was constituted in the University of Dublin? And, finally, whether he ever made a speech as a member of that club? It had been asserted that the Brunswick Clubs were not illegal, and that the armed members of such confraternities did not come within the provisions of the law; but he (Mr. Sadleir) would stake his reputation on this assertion, that those clubs had always been regarded by the most eminent lawyers and statesmen as illegal associations, and that those who were connected with them were liable to the penal operation of the law. Before he proceeded to examine whether the spirit of the Emancipation Act had been fairly carried out by the Whigs during the number of years in which they had enjoyed office, let him express his gratification that the author of a measure which struck the chain from the Catholic had left us a living pledge and a positive security in the hon. Member for Leominster, that the principle of that great Act of 1829 would not be reversed; and he could not but congratulate the people of this country that the late Member for Tamworth had left behind him a son so worthy of his father's name and of the statesmanlike career of one whose loss the House would so long deplore. With respect to the general question, he could not approach its consideration without first expressing his admiration of the conduct which had heretofore been pursued in reference to it by his Protestant and Presbyterian countrymen, who, with calm disdain, had stood aloof from that scene of religious infatuation which had disturbed society during the last three months. By the expression of such views as those which had been so clearly stated by the hon. Member for Leominster, he believed Protestantism was most effectually promoted. That principle, as he understood it, was to rely for guidance in religious matters on the word of God alone, and to despise and disdain all factitious aids, derived from statutory enactment, whether the professed object of those who introduced them might be to repress Protestantism or to promote it. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had repudiated the idea of Protestant ascendancy; and, in attestation of his sincerity, had stated that a larger proportion of State patronage had been conferred, since 1829, upon Catholics than upon Protestants. He believed the noble Lord to be incapable of manufacturing a fact; but he would not scruple to assure him that, by the deliberate misrepresentations of some designing persons, he (the noble Lord) had been lured into making as extravagant a misstatement as had ever been uttered even from the Treasury bench. He (Mr. Sadleir) challenged denial of the statement that at the present moment an undue proportion of the heads of all public departments in Ireland were selected from gentlemen professing the Protestant religion. The Catholics had not received anything remotely approaching to a fair apportionment of public patronage. He might also observe, that Irishmen, without distinction of creed, were excluded from a fair participation in the public service of the United Kingdom. The systematic exclusion from the circle of the Cabinet of all persons professing the Catholic religion, proved that the Government did not wish to carry out the spirit of the Emancipation Act; and the fact that Irishmen generally, without distinction of creed, were almost uniformly overlooked in the distribution of colonial patronage, proved that Ireland was not, in this respect, treated with justice or impartiality. No office in the colonies—unless, indeed, some insignificant office within one of the very least—was considered safe in the hands of an Irishman. He defied the President of the Board of Control to deny this assertion, that, in the distribution of the patronage of the Indian empire, it was systematically the practice to set aside every man, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Presbyterian, who happened to be so unfortunate as to claim Ireland for his native land. Returning to the question of Government patronage to Catholics in Ireland, he entreated the attention of the House to a few figures, which would show how erroneous were the views of the noble Lord at the head of the Government on this subject. The noble Lord had stated that, of the three Irish Chief Justices two were Catholics, thereby leaving the House to draw the inference, that judicial patronage in Ireland was in the favour of Catholics in the proportion of two to one. But nothing could be more absurdly erroneous than such a supposition. The office of Lord Chancellor had been five times vacant since the Act of 1829, yet it could only he filled by a Protestant. Out of twelve Common Law Judges in the Four Courts, only three were Catholics. From the Chancery Bench, Catholics, no matter how eminent for virtue,: erudition, and talent, were precluded by Act of Parliament; and the retention on the Statute-book of such an Act said very little indeed for the liberality of the present Government. There were seven Judges in the Court of Chancery, in the receipt of 25,000l. a year, and only one Roman Catholic could be found in that body, who got 2,767l. Only one Roman Catholic Master in Chancery had been appointed since 1829. In the Queen's Bench, the highest court in point of dignity after Chancery, the Judges, without a single exception, were Protestants. Five vacancies had occurred in that court since 1829, and in every instance a Protestant was appointed. There were two remembrancers, both Protestants; and two bankruptcy commissioners, both Protestants. There were five taxing-masters, of whom four were Protestants; and three Incumbered Estates Commissioners, of whom every man was a Protestant. The Chancery official staff consisted of seventy-three officers, of whom sixteen were Catholics. The aggregate salaries of the whole staff was 60,000l., and of that sum 3,000l. a year was taken by Catholic Members. The official staff of the Law Exchequer consisted of twenty-two officers, all Protestants, who had a revenue amongst them of 10,000l. a year. There were thirty-two assistant barristers, whose salaries amounted to 15,000l. per annum; there were only eight Roman Catholics in that body, who took among them only 3,732l. per annum. All the vacancies that had arisen in the position of assistant barristers in Ireland since the present Ministers came into office, had been filled up by the promotion of Protestants. There were twelve Judges in the Common Law Courts, who received 47,524l. per annum. Of those twelve, three only were Roman Catholics. Of the eighty-two officers of these courts, receiving 23,951l., seventeen were Roman Catholics, receiving among them less than 3,800l. a year. Twelve Crown solicitors receive 14,600l. a year; four of them only are Catholics, and they take amongst them only 2,000l. per annum. That was his answer to the noble Lord, who said there were three Chief Judges in Ireland, of whom two were Catholics, wishing the House to infer that the proportion in which Roman Catholics were pro- moted in Ireland, was as two to one. But the painful portion of the subject was this, that they had in Ireland a Viceroy who had taken every opportunity of proclaiming that he would dispense the public patronage connected with his office so as to carry out the principle enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, that of being guided by no other rule but promoting parties solely on account of their professional merits. When, however, members at the Irish bar found that persons were promoted to judicial offices without any professional standing, or any character for legal erudition, they felt that there was a twofold injury inflicted on them, because they considered it was a practical condemnation of their claims to the respect and confidence of their countrymen. He (Mr. Sadleir) believed that some promotions to the office of assistant barrister in Ireland were a disgrace to the Government, and were regarded by the Irish people as a practical injustice towards them. He was sorry to observe that the noble Lord, without any provocation, had asserted that since the Act of 1829 a larger proportion of public patronage had been conferred upon the Roman Catholics than upon those who adhered to the Protestant Church. He thought such remarks were much to be deprecated, as there ought to be no religious distinctions made in such cases. He had always studiously abstained from pursuing that painful and invidious topic, that the Roman Catholics were denied their fair proportion of advancements as compared with their Protestant countrymen; but the noble Lord, the First Minister, attaching, as he presumed he did, great importance to the subject, had started with it at the outset as one of the most important connected with the Bill, and not, as some superficial thinkers might assume, dealing with it as an irrelevant topic. Adverting to the observations of the noble Lord, the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, feeling the importance and relevancy of that topic, had combated, and to a certain extent refuted, the noble Lord's statement. The hon. Member for Dundalk took a similar course. The hon. Member for Athlone commented on it; and the hon. Member for the University of Dublin had urged flatly and broadly that the profession of the Protestant religion was a practical exclusion from all participation in the public patronage of the State—in fact, a positive disqualification. Did the noble Lord see the consequence of that fallacy which he had been the means of circulating? The noble Lord had said that eminent judicial patronage had been conferred on men professing the Roman Catholic faith in Ireland since 1829, in as great if not a greater proportion than on Protestants. Now, he (Mr. Sadleir) could say without fear of contradiction, that the head of public departments—of every public department in Ireland—was Protestant, notwithstanding the statement of the noble Lord, and the statement of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin. He broadly asserted that an undue proportion of the offices connected with the public service, taking them as between the Protestants and Catholics, were filled by gentlemen professing the Protestant religion. He made that statement after a careful examination of the facts, and he challenged contradiction. He would add this fact, that Irishmen, without distinction of creed, had been in an unjust and unfair manner excluded from participation in offices connected with the public service. He would take higher ground, and assert that there had been a systematic exclusion from the circle of the Cabinet of every Gentleman connected with the Roman Catholic religion, and that the Government had practically failed in carrying out the spirit and intention of the Act of Emancipation, introduced by the late right hon. Member for Tamworth. But to return to the particular illustration of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had said that there were three Chief Justices in Ireland; two were Roman Catholics and one Protestant, and he left the English Gentlemen to conclude that, therefore, the Catholics, since 1829, had obtained offices connected with the public service in the proportion of two to one. The office of Chancellor in Ireland had been vacant five times. It was a most important office, with enormous patronage indirectly, and great political power; but no matter how high a man's attainments might be, or how distinguished for erudition as a lawyer he may be, the office could only be filled by one professing the Protestant religion, and the Catholic barrister was cut off from enjoying that high and most distinguished position in his native land. And would Englishmen tell him that the most humble among the Catholic population in Ireland might not, at some time, attain the highest office in the service of the country, if left to compete for the honour free and unshackled by anything assimilating to a system of penal disabilities? In England they had seen instances of men raising themselves from the most inferior position to the highest offices, for an illustration of which he need only repeat a name often mentioned in that House, that of Sir E. Sugden. He (Mr. Sadleir) might also cite the case of the present Chancellor, and urge that the exclusion of Catholics from the office of Chancellor in Ireland was a refutation of the noble Lord's statement, that Catholics were admitted to every office and distinction since 1829. Independently of that, there were other facts to be noticed. There was the Judge of the Prerogative Court, and all the offices connected with it. Of all the five vacancies in the position of assistant barrister in Ireland, since the present Ministers had obtained office, he could say all except one had been filled by the promotion of Protestants. Was it becoming in the noble Lord to advance this topic, considering the great amount of favour conferred on those who had no other pretension to that distinction except the fact of their political connexion with the Government? Had not Irish Catholics a cause of complaint when they found the important office of legal adviser to the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary of Ireland had a second time been filled by a Protestant? He (Mr. Sadleir) was extremely sorry at being obliged by the noble Lord to notice this topic, preferring rather to address himself to the proposition before the House; but he saw plainly that the noble Lord made that statement with the view of creating an unfair prejudice against the claims and interests which he (Mr. Sadleir) was there to defend. In the three speeches which the noble Lord made, he entertained the House with an historical review of ecclesiastical history, and endeavoured to establish analogies between this and other countries, for the purpose of enlightening us respecting the dilemma into which we had been dragged. The noble Lord must have seen that there was little force or weight in his references. He might have told the House, that in Ireland the usual mode of appointing bishops was by the dean and chapter of the diocese, with the consent of the King, and the concurrence of the Pope. That was a wise and natural arrangement looking at the circumstances of the times. For instance, in the archdiocese of Cashel, in ancient times, the same individual combined in his own person the office of King and archbishop of that diocese. Under such a state of things it would be extraordinary indeed if the actual power of appointing to the bishopric vested in the Pope. With regard to the cry of "No Popery" that had been raised in this country, he (Mr. Sadleir) would take the liberty of reminding English Gentlemen that there was no one subject on which it was so easy to excite the religious feelings and prejudices of the people of this country than upon that very cry. At all times the illiterate, ignorant, and scum of this country, were lashed into frenzy by the force and action of that senseless cry. The greatest men, lay and clerical, of the Protestant Church, had constantly warned us against the danger of raising such a cry—a cry which caused the active agents of infidelity to point the finger of scorn against Christianity itself. He hoped his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects would be vigilant and firm during the present crisis. He felt an honest and natural pride in belonging to a body so loyal and faithful to the Sovereign, and such practical friends of social order. His answer to the slanders circulated through the public press, and issuing from the platforms of the country, against the Roman Catholics, was to be found in the declarations of the most distinguished Protestant divines, who had paid a just tribute of admiration to all that was admirable in the Roman Catholic faith. The profoundest of Protestant divines drew the attention of his Protestant friends and countrymen to the fact, that the missionaries of the Catholic Church were to be found in every clime, scaling the steepest ramparts of infidelity, and planting upon its highest citadel the triumphal banners of their faith. How many nations had the Catholic religion raised from a state of barbarism, having broken from off the slave the bonds which had rusted on him for ages, and enkindled within him the fire of a pure and elevating-religion! To his Catholic fellow-countrymen he would now say, "We have won our present position by a dignified and honourable course of constitutional exertion. It is not the efforts of the noble Lord, it is not the isolated efforts of any individual, to which we owe the legitimate advantages we now possess. We have subdued and overcome the spirit of religious intolerance by subduing and controlling our own passions; by our dignified resignation, and by our firm fortitude during years of persecution and oppression, guided as we were by the energies, by the unrelaxing efforts, by the towering genius, by the constitutional knowledge, by the legal acumen, by the undeviating allegiance and fidelity of our own O'Connell. Thus have we worked out our emancipation—thus have we accomplished a resurrection in our country. Faithful, firm, unmoved, unshaken, unterrified, unsubdued, our loyalty—our love—our zeal have always been the same. This was not the language of empty exultation—it was the practical soothing of the political soul—it was a dignified retrospect of the triumphs they had achieved. He asked his Roman Catholic countrymen to cherish the recollection of the services they had rendered to religious freedom. He asked them to bear in mind that the moment might be near at hand when they would have to decide whether they should sink down into a depression—to an insignificance more obscure than anything from which they had emerged, or whether they would be triumphantly conducted to national concord and to permanent peace.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he wished to make a few observations in order to explain to the House what course he proposed to take with regard to the Motion that had been proposed by the noble Lord. It was seldom that a Motion made by Government to bring in a Bill was so much discussed; but the principle involved in the measure now proposed was of the gravest importance. He had been in Parliament, with a short interval of absence, since the year 1837, and this was the first occasion on which he had been invited to embark in the policy involved in the proposition of the noble Lord. He was therefore desirous of taking no step in a matter of this importance without the fullest deliberation, and without being satisfied in his own mind that his reasons for whatever course he might take were sound and conclusive. He had been asked frequently to oppose the removal of disabilities from various portions of his fellow-countrymen, which had been imposed upon them on account of their religious opinions; but he said again this was the first time he had been invited to impose disabilities on men for their religions opinions. For what was the Bill? What the principle of the noble Lord? The noble Lord had invited him to join him in passing a penal law against men who desired by voluntary support and contributions among them- selves to support that form of ecclesiastical discipline which they believed best calculated to promote the religion they professed. There had been no proposal on the part of English Catholics calling upon the Legislature to invest their bishops with legal jurisdiction, or to give those bishops legal powers to tax this country for the purpose of spreading the Roman Catholic religion. There had been nothing of the kind; but here was a proposal against those over whom he hardly thought we had any jurisdiction in the case to impose penalties on men for seeking by voluntary association to carry out that form of religious discipline which they believed to be best calculated to promote the religion they professed. He (Mr. Gibson) hardly thought that, after all, it was intended the present measure should be carried. He had heard certain reports that day, and there was a statement in a leading journal, supposed to have a semi-official character—the Times, in which they were informed that Ireland ought to be left out of the Bill; and that if Ireland stood in the Bill, there was an understanding that it was not to be enforced in the case of that country. He did not think that such a course on the part of the Government was at all commendable. It would be much better for men to be open and fair and aboveboard, and not seek for the sake of an apparent uniformity to include Ireland without the intention of carrying it into effect there; and it appeared to him it would have been far better not to put Ireland into the Bill at all. But taking the Bill as propounded, it seemed strange to him that Her Majesty's Government should propose to place the Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland practically in a worse position than those of other portions of this country's dominions. In the Colonies there would exist no restrictions such as it was the object of the present measure to enact. If it were their duty to prevent the episcopal organisation of the Roman Catholics in the united kingdom, why was it not equally their duty to prevent this episcopal organisation in Australia and in our colonies of British North America? He was at a loss to know on what principle they proceeded if they did not pass a law equally applicable to all parts of Her Majesty's dominions. If what was termed Papal aggression were to be resisted, surely it was equally to be resisted in the Colonies as in the united kingdom itself. With a matter of local arrangement, or a matter of municipal law, which might be confided to the inhabitants of each particular colony, it might not be advisable for that House to interfere. But if it were true that the appointment of bishops by a foreign Power—by the Pope—was a violation of the law of nations, and an encroachment on the supremacy of the Crown, and the independence of the country; it was the duty of the Government, and of that House, not to shrink from their obvious duty, but to make what measure was considered necessary applicable to the whole of Her Majesty s possessions throughout the whole world. They could not, he thought, gainsay that argument. If this measure were merely to apply to the united kingdom, those who proposed it could not be considered sincere when they said that they brought forward this measure from no desire to persecute men on account of their religious opinions, but from an irresistible necessity of defending the Queen's supremacy and the independence of the country. They had been invited to come to the consideration of the question under feelings of insult and indignation. They were constantly told that if they did not feel themselves insulted, they at least ought to do so—that they ought to feel indignant. He agreed with the Bishop of St. David's—Dr. Thirlwal—that there was no insult in the matter. He (Mr. Gibson) approached this matter free from those feelings which had been expressed as present in the minds of those who promoted this measure. They were also constantly told that those who supported this measure were the advocates of religious liberty. They were told not to be at all alarmed, that it only looked like a penal statute on the face of it, but that it was really nothing of the sort—for hon. Gentlemen who had always advocated the principle of religious liberty would never propose any penal law against any body of men on account of their religion. It was not, however, the first time that those who wished to enact penal statutes, or continue them in force against those who differed with them in matters of religious belief, had proclaimed themselves the friends and the advocates of religious liberty. Hon. Gentlemen, who in former times had wished to maintain penal disabilities against the Roman Catholics, and wished to exclude them from that House, and from all the offices and emoluments of the State, had professed themselves the friends of religious freedom. These hon. Gentlemen had opposed the granting of civil rights to the Catholics, because they said it was necessary for the sake of religious liberty to keep down the Roman Catholics, and maintain penal laws against them. Lord Eldon, for instance, a great authority in those times, said in substance, that "he would be the last man in the world to interfere with perfect freedom of conscience, but there were reasons of State, considerations which made it necessary to exclude the Roman Catholics from equal civil privileges with other men, which had nothing to do with any infringement of religious liberty." It had been said that it was because the Roman Catholics owed a divided allegiance—because they acknowledged the spiritual authority of the Pope—that the House had been called on to exclude these men from Parliament. All these arguments were constantly used; but he (Mr. Gibson) would not be deterred from scrutinising this measure, because those who supported it said they were the friends and the advocates of religious liberty. They had been told that the country had taken up the question in a spirit quite in accordance with the principle of full religious liberty; and on the ground on which this legislation was demanded, they were told it had nothing at all to do with any attack on religious opinion. On looking at the proceedings which had taken place in the country, he found that there had been no absence of discussion as to the tenets of the Roman Catholics, and these tenets were put forward as the reason, and the principal reason, why the House was to enact these penal laws. He would take Dr. Cumming, and it would be admitted that he (Dr. Cumming) wag a great authority for the statement of what was the ground on which the country demanded these laws. And what had Dr. Cumming stated in a lecture which he had delivered on Papal Aggression? He said "that the teaching of Cardinal Wiseman is the best reason of protest against his intrusion as Archbishop of Westminster." His religious teaching, then, was the reason against Cardinal Wiseman; according to Dr. Cumming—not that he had been appointed by a foreign potentate—not that he had violated the supremacy of the Crown and the independence of the country, but that his teaching did not suit Dr. Cumming. Again, let them take the case of the noble Lord himself (Lord J. Russell). He (Mr. Gibson) held in his hand a letter, dated from Downing-street, printed for distribution at 5s. per 100, by Westerton, of Hyde-park-corner, and printed, too, "contrary to the Act in that case made and provided," on unstamped paper, thereby rendering every person who bought or sold a copy of it liable to a penalty of 20l. What had the noble Lord said in the first portion of that letter? "It is an aggression of the Pope on our Protestantism." This was then not an aggression on the Queen's temporal or spiritual power! Nothing of that kind, but an aggression on an opinion—on a sentiment. This appeared to him (Mr. Gibson) to be another confirmation that it was a desire to prevent the propagation of the Roman Catholic religion, by the enactment of penal statutes, that was at the bottom of all the agitation. He would quote another great authority: the Rev. Dr. Hugh M'Neile, in a speech on Papal Aggression, delivered in Exeter Hall, had said— I say, it is the bounden duty of British Christians to guard against domestic intercourse with Roman Catholics. If you allow domestic intercourse with Roman Catholics—if your sons and daughters become intimate with Roman Catholics, you with a good grace, and consistently with your duties as parents, forbid the marriage. If you object to such marriages, take all means to prevent domestic intercourse with Roman Catholics. I am persuaded that much misery has arisen from such domestic intercourse. If, instead of the unclean thing being fondled, we had come out from it and denied it our support and encouragement, much that is to be deplored would not have taken place; but you have fondled the unclean thing, you have taken it to your breast, until at length it has turned round and stung you. This was a speech on Papal aggression, showing the animus of those who had made the noise which had been heard in reference to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The noble Lord by his Bill did not, in the slightest degree, meet the objects of this reverend gentleman, who was one of the members of their State Church, the rights of which they were now called on to vindicate, and to which they were now called on to create a sort of attachment, by vilifying and abusing the religion of others. He (Mr. Gibson) recollected a noble Viscount saying, "Don't praise us, do nothing but abuse the others. That is the way to create an attachment to us." This was very much the method which the Church of England had adopted in this matter. He had made these remarks in order to point out to them that it was not true that the country had taken up this question as a mere matter regarding the temporal power of the Sovereign, and which might be dealt with without any violation of the principle of religious liberty. But the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in the letter which he had put forth, and which had been the foundation of this movement—a movement which, to that moment, had never reached the working classes—in that letter the noble Lord had, in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion, made himself an aggression on our Protestantism; because he had issued a divinity proclamation from Downing-street, deciding what was superstition and what was not. He (Mr. Gibson) was himself a member of the State Church, and he did not profess to be able to deliver offhand this sort of opinion as to what the doctrines of the Church ought to be, or what they were. But the noble Lord, talking of Protestantism and of private judgment, had been able to point out what was superstitious. He (Mr. Gibson) wondered how he (Lord J. Russell), not being an authorised and infallible expositor of evangelical truth, could undertake to propound such a subject. The letter of the noble Lord had not been a private communication; it had been a proclamation from the Papal chair in Downing-street, saying what their religion ought not to be. This looked very like an aggression. But the other day the question of baptismal regeneration had been referred to an authorised tribunal, to ascertain whether that doctrine of the Church, received in a particular way, was an orthodox one. The result had been, that it could not be decided what the doctrine of the Church was. Seeing that an authorised tribunal in this country had such extreme difficulty in discovering the doctrines of the Church, he (Mr. Gibson) said it was boldness—he did not undertake to say commendable boldness—but it argued great moral courage in the noble Lord to give forth a proclamation to the effect that certain doctrines were superstitious, leaving it, of course, to be inferred that the doctrines not so characterised or not particularly alluded to by the noble Lord, were sound doctrine. Supposing it were right that the noble Lord, as Prime Minister, should make this proclamation of divinity to the country—and he (Mr. Gibson) must say that he doubted the policy of it—they might have Prime Ministers issuing proclamations, denouncing other things as superstitious. If the Prime Minister were a Unitarian, he might undertake to write from Downing-street that the doctrine of the Trinity was not sound; and as there was nothing to exclude a Roman Catholic from becoming Prime Minister, you might, another year, have the Prime Minister denouncing Protestantism as unsound. Such a course might lead to what he (Mr. Gibson) considered to be a great national evil. If any duty were more incumbent on those who administered public affairs than another, it was to endeavour to calm and to pacify those religious animosities as they sprung up in the country, and most carefully to avoid anything calculated in the slightest degree to aggravate them. Was it not preposterous that, because the members of the Established Church could not make up their minds upon their doctrines, and were at variance upon certain important tenets, they should allege that as a reason why they should impose pains and penalties on Roman Catholics? He (Mr. Gibson) did not understand on what principle the question of Puseyism could be imported into the matter. It was, however, imported into the matter; and they had the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley) occupying the greater portion of his speech with it. The letter of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had originated a movement, be that movement great or small; and the larger portion of that letter was occupied in condemning Puseyite doctrines and practices. They were called on to pass this law against their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, on the ground that they had bishops appointed in the only way that bishops could be appointed for them—by the Pope; because these bishops had districts assigned them in the usual way, and because these bishops had taken the only reasonable course they could take, and had called themselves bishops of the districts in which they laboured. How had the letter of Cardinal Wiseman been addressed? Had it been addressed to the inhabitants of the united kingdom. No; it had been addressed to "the clergy and the faithful," which, in the understanding of the terms, could not be conceived as meaning anything but that he assumed that jurisdiction due to him in reference to those who submitted themselves voluntarily to his authority. A good deal had been made of the word "govern" in the pastoral letter of the Pope; but he (Mr. Gibson) contended that that word should not frighten them. It was in the usual style of such documents, and the word was constantly used without meaning that temporal governing to which the noble Lord had alluded. He (Mr. Gibson) asked if they were to prevent these Roman Catholic ecclesiastics from being called by the names of the districts in which they were to have their spiritual jurisdiction over Roman Catholics? They could not avoid having intercourse with the Pope. They could not prevent papal bulls and writings from reaching this country. They allowed these things, and they allowed the unrestricted appointment of bishops. But they were very much alarmed when these bishops took the names of those places in which, for convenience sake, they must be supposed to have particular jurisdiction. Some hon. Gentlemen, however, would not allow unrestricted, intercourse with the Pope; and, although the penalties were repealed, yet it was held to be a misdemeanour at common law for a Roman Catholic to have intercourse with the Papal See. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood) had told them of a certain manœuvre attempted with the view of commencing legal proceedings against Cardinal Wiseman—bringing an indictment against him for introducing bulls from Rome. Had this been worthy of the consideration of that House? He (Mr. Gibson) remembered a case precisely similar. A right reverend Prelate in the House of Lords, quoting the opinions of Sir Samuel Romilly and Lord Eldon, had said, if not in these words, to this effect, that— When they repealed penalties for not believing, they did not render disbelief legal; they only repealed the penalties which were in force, and that a person could still be indicted, under what was called the blasphemy law, for being a Unitarian. By the disinterment of such statutes they shook the sense of justice of the whole community. If they were only to look into the statutes and see what old obsolete laws were still allowed to deface its pages, they would find that there were very few of them who were not liable to penalties for doing what they did in these days with perfect impunity. On the Statute-book there was a law at that moment imposing a penalty on every man who did not attend the parish church. The legal habits of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood) would induce him, if occasion required, to have recourse to such obsolete statutes; but he (Mr. Gibson) did not think that such a course was justifiable. He thought these old obsolete statutes ought not to be quoted in that House to induce them to legislation, but should rather be collected into some report and laid before the Govern- ment, that they might bring in a Bill to totally remove them from the Statute-hook, and that they might neither have them brought into courts of law for vindictive and improper purposes, nor have them quoted in the hall of their legislation to induce them to act on unsound principles. They were going undoubtedly to narrow the liberty which they gave to the Roman Catholics when they passed the Emancipation Bill, if they agreed to this Act. There could not he the slightest doubt that this rule of law, at least, was certain—that all penal statutes were to be construed strictly. That being so, inasmuch as there was a penalty of 100l. which applied only to the assumption of titles which were already enjoyed by the dignitaries of the Established Church, it appeared to him perfectly obvious that the assumption of other titles did not come under the statute, and therefore they were by this Bill taking a deliberate step in a retrograde direction, with a view to narrow the liberties which they gave to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects when they passed the Emancipation Bill. No ground—no reasonable ground had been assigned for this Act; for, although they had been told so much about the supremacy of the Crown, he must take the liberty of telling the noble Lord and the Gentlemen who had used that expression so much, that he knew of no supremacy in the united kingdom but the supremacy of the law; and if the law had not been broken, it was impossible that the supremacy of the Crown should have been violated, because the prerogatives of the Crown must be in conformity to the law. If, then, it were not denied that the assumption of titles was in accordance with law—and no Gentleman who had spoken from authority had ventured to assert the illegality of anything except the bringing in of papal bulls—and did not apply to the assumption of titles, why were they to be continually hearing these eternal complaints that the supremacy of the Crown had been violated, the rights of the Established Church infringed, and the independence of the nation attacked? It appeared to him that these expressions amounted to little better than clap-traps, if Ministers were not able to say that the assumption of titles, which was the matter in hand, was a violation of the law. He could be no party whatever to impose penalties upon Roman Catholics for carrying out their own voluntary ecclesiastical arrangements, supported by their own voluntary subscrip- tions, not interfering with the rights and liberties of any person in these dominions; and he could not for the life of him understand how those who supported the voluntary system among the Dissenters could reconcile it with their consistency to be the advocates of this Bill. Before he sat down—for they should have many opportunities of discussing that measure—he would take the opportunity of expressing his regret that in the speech of the noble Lord, he should, with a view of preparing them for that Bill, have told them of various acts of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in Ireland and elsewhere, calculated, undoubtedly, to prejudice the mind, and to induce men to come to rather a hasty, and not a very just, decision upon the matter that was before them. To tell them of the interference of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in Ireland in the question of education, was to tell them what was very little to the purpose. If the noble Lord was prepared to raise the question, which was nothing more than that of secular or religious instruction, he (Mr. Gibson) was prepared to go into it with him; but when the noble Lord was himself a supporter of the mixing of secular and religious instruction—when the noble Lord had himself in that House advocated the interference of clergymen of the Established Church, and of religious teachers of various denominations, as an essential element in public education, he did not think it either fair or reasonable that the noble Lord should attempt to raise a prejudice in their minds against these Roman Catholic ecclesiastics for interfering with education in Ireland. Why, what was this case of interference in Ireland? At the Synod of Thurles, thirteen Roman Catholic bishops advocated the non-separation of secular from religious instruction; and twelve Roman Catholic bishops, as he understood, were not against the separation of secular from religious instruction. Produce him, then, twelve Protestant bishops of the Established Church, who would advocate the separation of secular from religious instruction. It was new to him that they had got this band of liberal men in their own Church. In order to raise a prejudice against the Church of Rome, the noble Lord quoted the opinion of M. Dupin upon that Church. He (Mr. M. Gibson) would also give a French quotation, but upon another Church Establishment, the English Church, which would form a sort of pendant to that of the noble Lord. What did M. Guizot, a great Protestant, a great Protestant reformer, say, in his History of European Civilization, of the Church of England? He said, "The English Church is as corrupt as over was that of Rome, and far more servile." The quotation was entirely provoked by that of the noble Lord. The charge was, that an aggression had been made by the Church of Rome on England. Did English missionaries get no support, ay, and in a physical sense, in making aggressions on the religions of foreign countries? An instance might be adduced of what looked much more like an aggression than the proceedings of the Pope. The Overland Mail of November 28, 1850, contained a paragraph, stating— In our last overland summary we referred to the difficulties at Fuh-chau, arising out of certain missionaries of the Church of England having obtained and insisted on retaining possession of a temple within the city, very much against the wishes of the people, who, in their excitement, threatened to destroy the building. Their violence, however, has been restrained for the time by the authorities, who appear to have acted with much prudence and decision; but, while exerting themselves to protect the missionaries from personal injury, they at the same time protest against the course pursued by the rev. gentlemen as both illegal and impolitic, and have issued several manifestoes on the subject, in one of which it is attempted to be shown, not altogether unsuccessfully, that they are acting in contravention of the treaty. We have now received copies of two of these documents, which, however, are too long for insertion at present. The missionaries, it is said, are acting in accordance with the instructions of Bishop Smith, who, as he proposes visiting Fuh-chau during his present cruise, may, after personal inquiry on the spot, be induced to modify them. That looked like a physical aggression—missionaries taking possession of a temple, a bishop making his cruise in a man-of-war. The screw-sloop Reynard arrived at Shanghai on the 14th of October, conveying a communication from the British Government relating to the missionaries:— Repeated complaints having been made to the British Government, it was arranged that a man-of-war should occasionally be despatched to look in upon Dr. Bettleheim at Loocho, in order to afford him the countenance of the Government by whom he had been adopted. Loocho was an independent country. Dr. Bettleheim was a converted Jew, a native of Hungary, but a naturalised British subject. The Reynard anchored in Napa harbour on the 3rd of October, and remained a week, during which time two or three interviews were held with the native authorities, both on shore and on board. It was deemed expedient to exclude Dr. Bettle- heim from all share in the negotiations; and the Bishop of Victoria, who was on board, on his way to the northern ports (assisted in interpretation by his Chinese amanuensis Chun-chung, a Latin as well as Chinese scholar), is stated to have contributed materially to bring about the good results which it is hoped will follow from the firm yet conciliatory tone adopted. Interviews took place between the Viceroy and the commander of the vessel. At the last interview— It was deemed advisable for the officers of the Reynard to appear in full dress, attended by a guard of about fifty men, who were marshalled opposite the guard of the mandarins. The various complaints made by Dr. Bettleheim were made the subject of conversation, and explanatory papers were exchanged; but it was judged better to limit the proceedings as far as possible to the delivery of the intimation from the British Government, inculcating the necessity of better treatment of Dr. Bettleheim, among whose complaints one of the most serious seems to have been an assault on him by some police while engaged in his missionary duties. At the termination of the negotiations presents were exchanged, and the Viceroy and other mandarins, in return for their hospitality, partook of an entertainment on board the Reynard. She was the first steamer that had been seen there, and, though it was evident her arrival had made a considerable impression, her departure was probably regarded with entire satisfaction. That (the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say) was a description of aggression that ho thought they ought not to authorise; and, for one, he should be prepared to advocate resistance if it were attempted in this country—attempted in this sort of physical character. He must admit, that the noble Lord, in his statement, generally expressed his dislike to the interference of ecclesiastics in temporal and secular matters. He cordially concurred in that principle, thinking that the duties of those gentlemen were strictly those of giving religious consolation to their respective communities. He only regretted that in the course of the speech with which the noble Lord favoured them as to the great importance of bringing in this Bill, the only two authorities that bore on the matter in hand were two reverend gentlemen. A large portion of the speech had reference to the proceedings of Roman Catholics in various parts of Europe, matters undoubtedly of great interest, but as far as the matter in hand was concerned, the only authority the noble Lord gave them was that of two ecclesiastics of the Established Church. The noble Lord mentioned the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he said the Bishop of London had suggested that there ought to be legislation to prevent the assumption of these titles; he said that that was the answer which the Bishop gave to one of the addresses, which was presented to him, that they ought to prohibit the assumption of any titles derived from any place in the united kingdom. And therefore, said the noble Lord, he had agreed with that suggestion. The noble Lord also said, that when he informed the Archbishop of Canterbury that it was not intended to institute a prosecution, his Grace replied, that he did not expect the Government would institute a prosecution, but he did expect that some legislation should take place on the subject. Now these were the only two authorities, and, with due submission, be did not think that these were the gentlemen to apply to on this subject. Dr. Blomfield, who was in his elevated position, at his ease, surrounded with all the pomps and vanities of the world, not exempt from the infirmities of our nature, and desiring to stand alone in his glory, he confessed he did not think the proper sort of person to be asked what sort of indignity was to be passed on Dr. Wiseman. Nor was even Dr. Sumner, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He thought if there ever was an improper interference in temporal affairs, this was one of all others in which they should not have meddled, because it would be imputed to them, whether justly or not, that they were acting from jealous feelings, and from a desire to maintain, as it were, a sort of supremacy of their own by preventing the proceedings of other religious communities from being carried out. He should not have thought of applying to Dr. Wiseman to ask what proceedings he should take against Dr. Blomfield, nor would he apply to Dr. Blomfield to know what proceedings he should take against Dr. Wiseman. He would deal with this subject not under the advice of ecclesiastics of the Established Church, but he would deal with it as a national question. In considering how far the Bill which was proposed was calculated to promote the harmony of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, he hoped, if he had understood the Attorney General, there would be one clause inserted in the Bill before it was enacted into a law. He dared say hon. Gentlemen might have observed a clause in Bills to the effect that "this Act may be repealed or amended during the present Session of Parliament." Now, be would put a clause in the Bill proposed, "And be it enacted, that this Act may be broken with impunity during the present and all future Sessions of Parliament." For he was quite persuaded, however much the noble Lord might have changed his opinions as to the puerility of legislating against titles, and the total impossibility of proventing these communications with Borne—he was so far persuaded in his own mind that their law would be nugatory for any good purpose, and only calculated to cause great irritation, and that it was well described by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire as a piece of petty persecution, that he, for one, if he never gave another vote in that House, would use his utmost endeavour to prevent the passing of this Bill.

MR. CUMMING BRUCE

said, he addressed the House on this occasion with extreme reluctance. Opposed as he had been to the noble Lord's general political course, he considered it no more than in accordance with the respect due to the Minister of the Crown, and with common courtesy, when the Minister introduced a measure alluded to in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, to have allowed him to have introduced it on the night that he proposed it. He should not, however, have now addressed the House, had it not been for an observation of an hon. Friend of his (the hon. Member for Ayrshire), who, in his opinion, had misrepresented the feelings of the people of Scotland in this matter. His hon. Friend said, there had been no demonstration in Ayrshire or in Scotland generally against the Papal aggression. Now, in no country were the people more thoroughly opposed to Popery than in Scotland; but the people of Scotland were not apt to volunteer their services when they were not wanted. They relied on the firmness, the energy, the love of truth, and the attachment of the people of England to the principles of civil and religious liberty, to which the doctrine of Rome had ever been opposed. But he would venture to say, on behalf of the people of Scotland, that if their assistance were required to resist the aggression of the Romanist power in this country, it would not be wanting. The hon. Member for Ayrshire had charged the Free Church with having set up a sort of hierarchy, by establishing general assemblies, new parishes, and the like; and yet, he said, it had not been interfered with. But the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the matter. The case was entirely different. The Free Church did not call itself the Established Church, and from its very designation (a fanciful one he would admit), it was perfectly clear that it was a purely voluntary association, limited to the purely spiritual influence which it exercised over those who attached themselves to its views. But, on the other hand, here was a Church, which from its very pretensions to infallibility was not, and never had been, able, as all histery and experience proved, to separate spiritual matters from temporal. There was, therefore, no analogy whatever between the cases of the Free Church and the Church of Rome. The hon. Gentleman in his speech had also alluded to the Episcopal Church of Scotland, which had also assumed titles, which he considered they were equally called upon to put down. But there was this marked difference between England and Scotland—namely, that in the latter espiscopal titles had been abolished altogether; and, therefore, to assume them, there was an act very different to the aggression committed in assuming them from places in this country. Various Gentlemen who had spoken in the course of the debate, had expressed an opinion as to what the feeling of the country would be with regard to the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and with regard to the measure which his Lordship had introduced. He would therefore take the liberty of telling them what the feeling would be in Scotland upon both points. With regard to the speech, he believed that the men of Scotland would consider it worthy of the Protestant Minister of a Protestant Government. But with regard to the measure, he was obliged to consider it somewhat of a "lame and impotent conclusion." All Scotland would agree with the line of policy shadowed forth in the speech of the noble Lord; but the measure he had proposed would not meet with their approval. He believed the noble Lord would have to go a great deal further. [Cheers.] Yes, the noble Lord would not only have to forbid the assumption of titles, but he must render penal the reception of bulls. He would have to go further still. He must put down all monkeries, whether white, black, or grey, or whatever colour they might be. The hon. Member for Leominster, who had addressed the House with an ability quite calculated to arrest attention, to say nothing of the old associations connected with his name, had expressed an opinion that the great manifestation of Protestant feeling was only valuable, inasmuch as it was a union of all Protestants to maintain the great truths in which they were agreed. He (Mr. Bruce), however, could not agree with that proposition. As the representatives of the people of England, they were bound to consider the wishes of the people; and, if possible, to give them effect; and he thought the House of Commons would be wanting in its duty to the country if it failed to entertain a measure, the object of which was to carry those wishes into effect.

MR. FOX MAULE

said, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the speech of his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, and he wished to contrast that speech with those which had come from the lower part of the House, to show that in the present position of this question there was no blame to be attributed to the Government for endeavouring to steer in this matter a middle course between extreme opinions on the one side and the other, and to suit the legislation they had proposed to the House to the exigencies of the case, in which that legislation had originated. But he could not help being struck with a remark that had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, that the matter was out of the jurisdiction of the House; and that it ought to confine its duties to matters connected entirely with taxation and the ledger. But the House had duties superior to that. It was his duty to see that those rights and liberties which had been handed down to us by our forefathers should be delivered unimpaired to those who were to follow after us. But his right I hon. Friend seemed to endeavour to catch the attention of the House more by the misrepresentation of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, than by any other plan. In the first place, he had totally forgotten to refer to the speeches which I had fallen from his noble Friend, but had stated that, from his chair in Downing-street, the noble Lord had issued a certain letter in which he had taken upon himself to instruct the country in spiritual and ecclesiastical doctrines. His noble Friend: had done no such thing. [Cheers.] He stated distinctly that he had been guilty of no such act of presumption, but in all I that referred to matters of an ecclesiastical character he had quoted almost verbatim the words of the Bishop of London. Then, again, it had been said that before his noble Friend introduced this measure, he had taken counsel with the Bishop of London and with the Archbishop of Canterbury. His noble Friend had distinctly denied that also, for, on the contrary, he had informed the Archbishop and Bishop what he had resolved to do. Both he and his colleagues had framed the measure entirely upon their own responsibility, and were indebted for advice to no ecclesiastical authority, as indeed they had consulted no clerical authority whatever. His right hon. Friend went on further to say, that it was the noble Lord's letter which stirred up all the strife in the country. Now, it was a well-known fact that the Pope's unwarrantable bull had been in the country three weeks at least before the letter was ever written at all; and the Bar had drawn up and signed the very remarkable petition which had emanated from them before that letter appeared before the public. Therefore, he said, his noble Friend had been most unfairly dealt with; and the part he had taken in guiding the public opinion would ere long receive the gratitude of every class of the community, and even of the House itself. He (Mr. Fox Maule) wished to say one word as to what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, in the course of his speech on Wednesday. His hon. Friend said, that the people of Scotland were indifferent on this subject; and in the same breath he stated that there were no men so opposed to Popery in every form as the people of Scotland. He (Mr. Fox Maule) agreed in that description of his countrymen; and he had sometimes had occasion to lament that they carried that feeling to excess. He had regretted that on many occasions he could not go along with some of his countrymen in their feelings on some questions relating to the religion of so large a portion of the inhabitants of this country; but at the same time that very fact had convinced him that the step lately taken by the Pope, involving an aggression upon the authority, the honour, and the prerogative of the Crown, and upon the Protestant liberties of this country, was a step which must be highly offensive to the whole people of Scotland. But the hon. Gentleman had said that there was a strong parallel case between a portion of the Presbyterian Church, to which he belonged, and the Church of Rome, in the aggression which each had made. Now, he should never cease to think of what had taken place in 1843 without the deepest regret. That event was one of the noblest but one of the saddest of modern days. The Church of Scotland was one of the most useful national churches that ever existed in any country, and the most Protestant; and no man, or no body of men, ever regretted the step which a conscientious feeling compelled them to take, more than the very men who seceded. But what similitude was there between their case and that of the Roman Catholics? The Free Church maintained the same ministrations as the Established Church—the same doctrines, and the same discipline. But it was said that they had divided the country into districts, or parochial divisions. They had done no such thing. The fact of the matter was that in almost every parish a congregation, or part of a congregation, left the church in which they had been in the habit of worshipping; and he presumed that the hon. Gentleman would have exported them from the parishes likewise, instead of permitting them to reorganise themselves in the different localities in which they lived. They had called themselves by an innocent name (a fanciful name it was, he would admit); but they had tried two or three others before it was adopted, and the Home Secretary for a long time had utterly repudiated it, speaking of them as "a body of Christians calling themselves the Free Church." It would be far better to leave it and the Established Church in the position in which they were then standing. Their differences were beginning to be forgotten, and they were meeting together for the common performance of various Christian purposes on the same platform. They were uniting in the same holy endeavour to overcome and overtake the infidelity that prevailed in the cities of our land. Why then should the hon. Gentleman rake up those differences which were passing away, and revive a quarrel which they must all regard with the deepest regret? The hon. Gentleman had also gone on to speak of the Episcopal Church. He (Mr. Fox Maule) would not allude to that period which was generally called the "black years"—namely, from 1680 to 1685—when the sword of persecution was indeed unsheathed against the Covenanting population. Those times had long since gone by, and the Episcopal Church was now a sect of Dissenters which did a great deal of good amongst those who belonged to its communion. It lived in peace with all men, and sought no quarrel with any one. It, too, with the other denominations in Edin- burgh, was vieing with the rest who should reduce the crime and infidelity of our country to belief and to obedience to the laws. Passing from this subject to the state of the Roman Catholics before this unhappy aggression, he could not but observe that the penal laws had been introduced more to protect the Sovereign from the cabals of the Roman Catholics, than with any desire to interfere with their faith. Step by step, as our Protestant constitution had become consolidated and firm, had these penal laws vanished from the Statute-book, or fallen into disuse; so that in August last the Roman Catholics were in the full enjoyment of every spiritual privilege, and in the full exorcise of their religion. Their Church was enabled to follow out its discipline, both in Ireland and in England, with an efficiency that she had not possessed in this country at least for 200 years. She did not complain that she could not administer her sacraments, or fulfil all her rites, or do her spiritual duties to her people as effectually under the system of vicariates in August last as she had done for the 200 years preceding. In fact, the whole horizon wore a calm and peaceful aspect. If he might except a few growls from the lion of St. Jarlath's, the whole scone was perfectly tranquil, and was such as certainly gave great encouragement to toleration. But on a sudden the whole was disturbed. A decree emanated from the Court of Rome which took them entirely by surprise. But it seemed that hon. Gentlemen were not disposed to believe that the Government were taken by surprise; yet the noble Lord had stated in 1848 most distinctly that so far as he was concerned, he never would consent to the step which had recently been taken. But to whom was the gratifying state of things, which he had been describing, principally owing? It was attributable to no one more than his noble Friend at the head of the Government, whose conduct in this matter would in fact have earned, if that had been possible, a claim to the liveliest gratitude of the Irish people. Was there any other Irishmen, or any friend of civil and religious liberty amongst English Members, who would re-echo that sentiment? Sir Robert Peel was too generous to assume that credit for a measure which belonged almost entirely to those who had opposed his policy. It was true he had the courage to carry that emancipation into effect; but in doing so, he had stated that to the noble Lord now the First Minister of the Crown, and to the great party who for years had contended for that emancipation when out of office, and who might have been in office but for their feeling with respect to that measure, was the credit of it due. Yet the hon. Member for Carlow said that to Sir Robert Peel, and not to the noble Lord and the great party of whom he was the head and ornament, were Roman Catholics indebted for the blessings of emancipation. He maintained that the course which Government had taken in this matter was one that they were imperatively called on to take in defence of the Protestant constitution of this country. He did not wish to use offensive words, but he would say the Protestant feeling of the country had been most wantonly and ungratefully assailed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow had said, that the act of the Pope imposed the canon law upon the Catholic laity, who voluntarily came forward to submit to it. He would say boldly that no earnest Catholic could give a voluntary submission to the canon law. The submission was imperative, the obedience absolute. In proof of that, lie need only refer to that address which had emanated from the Roman Catholics of this country, and lately carried up to the Queen, in which they declared that obedience to their spiritual superiors and to the canon law of the Church, was a matter of virtue in them. He might be allowed to say a word in reference to the duties of the office which he filled. He had done all in his power to provide for the spiritual comforts of the Roman Catholic soldiery, whether in health or in sickness. Care was taken that on the sabbath and on their saint-days nothing but imperative duties should stand between them and the discharge of their religious obligations. In standing by the measure which the Government had introduced, he did so as a Protestant legislator, and from no feeling either of hatred to his Catholic fellow-countrymen, or of antipathy to the religion which they professed. He respected their religion, though he did not agree with them. He should be swayed by no considerations but those of duty; he would be deterred by no fears or frowns, but would do his duty in the matter as became a sincere and loyal Protestant, an independent Member of that House, and the servant of a Sovereign who had a paramount duty to perform.

MR. SCULLY

said, the right hon. Gen- tleman the Secretary at War had stated that the letter of the noble Lord was not the origin of the excitement in Great Britain. Before the publication of that letter, however, meetings were few and far between; but, after that letter, the cry of "No Popery" reigned throughout the country, and meetings were held in every county, whereas they were silent before. He contended, therefore, that they must connect that letter with the violent meetings and speeches throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Roman Catholics were bound to obey every part of the canon law; the fact, however, was, that they were only bound to obey it, or the head of the Church, in spiritual matters, and were perfectly independent of either in temporal concerns. The greater part of the army were Roman Catholics; now, if they imposed penal laws, they should consider how they were to be enforced. They must call upon the civil authorities, and in case of necessity upon the military, to support them. But was it right to call on a force that might (he did not say they would) be influenced by their religious feelings not to carry out the law? The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had given the Roman Catholic soldiery power to attend their own religious services. He did not know that because Roman Catholics entered the army they were to be deprived of the privilege of attending their places of worship; but he knew that, in some instances in Ireland, they had been withdrawn from those places of worship without sufficient grounds. This measure was an insult to Ireland; it was an attempt to re-enact the penal laws; and though the right hon. the Secretary at War might say that all Scotland and England were in its favour, he told him and the House that all Ireland was against it. Besides, the hon. Member for Ayrshire had stated that there was no feeling in its favour on the part of the Presbyterians of Scotland; and the Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Free Church there had refused to meet, agitate, or protest against the step which the See of Rome had taken. In the face of these facts, he called upon the Government to pause before they proceeded further in this matter. It was their duty to respect the feelings not only of the Roman Catholic, but of the Protestant and Presbyterian population of Ireland; they might, by their infatuated conduct, drop a spark in Ireland that might kindle a flame that they could never extinguish, and which might end in blood, anarchy, and confusion.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, it was only his intention to trespass for a very short time on the attention of the House, for he would not wish to interpose between the expressed sentiments of the House and the division to which they seemed desirous of coming. He thought it, however, his duty to say, that, although he could not place much confidence in the Government, or its capability to maintain, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had said, the dignity and security of this country, he should vote for them on that occasion. They had seen so much on the part of the noble Lord opposite and others since the passing of the Act of 1829, that he (Colonel Sibthorp) would rather have both arms cut off than vote for that Bill; and that he said without having any un-Christian or uncharitable feeling towards any class of his countrymen. As it was a duty he owed his Sovereign, however, on account of what was recommended in Her Majesty's Speech, he should feel obliged to register his name for the Motion of the noble Lord, however little he might think the measure calculated for the security of the State, or satisfactory to either Protestant or Catholic.

MR. MUNTZ

trusted the House would excuse him for detaining them a short time while he explained the motives which induced him to give his vote for the introduction of the Bill. He looked upon the present question as one of the most disagreeable and disgusting that had come before the public since he took any part in political life. Up to that moment he had taken no part in any proceedings or discussions on this question, wishing to hear its merits fully discussed, more particularly in that House, in order that he might be able to arrive at a just conclusion between both parties. Most of the Members of that House were, perhaps, aware that a meeting had been held in Birmingham, which borough he had the honour to represent, on the subject, and that parties were so equally divided, that no resolution had been come to. If he had then spoken, he should have requested the meeting to arrive at the end they did, by withdrawing both the original resolution and the amendment. He was present at that meeting, and it was probable that, even with the little influence which he possessed, if he interfered in favour of any course, that course would been adopted; but so determined was he not to interfere, that he took no steps whatever in the matter. He was inclined to say, from the difficulties and controversies which this question had occasioned between parties and Churches, "A plague on both your Churches!" No person was less influenced on religious questions than he was. [Much laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen allowed him to finish the sentence, they would have no cause to laugh. What he was going to say was, that he never questioned any person as to his religion when he was hiring a servant or a workman, and he wished to carry out that principle; all he required was, that they should conduct themselves honestly, soberly, and industriously. On looking at the practice of Roman Catholic and Protestant countries throughout Europe, he found that the Pope had not the power of making bishops in any country without an understanding with, and the consent of, the Sovereign Power. He would give the Roman Catholics every right that they had had hitherto; but he did not think they should have power now which they did not possess even before the Reformation. Another argument which weighed with him on this practical question was this, he had read history, and all history told him that, where the Catholic religion was established supreme, the people did not enjoy religious liberty or general prosperity. He mentioned these two points in order that he might be enlightened on the subject if he was wrong, by hon. Members on some future stage of the debate. He had some doubts as to how he should decide in reference to this question. He should vote, however, for the introduction of the Bill, reserving to himself the right of taking such a course afterwards as lie might think fit.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, he had taken no part in the agitation of this question out of doors, nor had he intended to take any part in this debate; but he had endeavoured to ascertain what were the real merits of the case, that he might see as clearly as he could what part he ought to take. Both the hon. Members for Manchester had placed him in rather a painful position. The House knew that the towns of Manchester and Salford were intimately connected, and that they were, in fact, one and the same constituency. Now, he had reason to believe that the sentiments which had been expressed by those two hon. Members were not the sentiments of that constituency. He would not yield to either of his hon. Friends in a desire to advocate every measure calculated to promote the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty by any class of Her Majesty's subjects, and he trusted he never should do so. But the grounds on which he considered it to be his duty to vote for the introduction of this Bill were very different from any such motives. From the opinions of the most eminent lawyers, and of the most enlightened statesmen, and from the sentiments expressed by the community at large, it did appear that in this instance the rights of the Sovereign had been infringed, and the liberty and independence of the nation assailed. He did not consider this to be a religious question, but one which affected Her Majesty's prerogative, and the rights and liberties of Her Majesty's subjects. He was not called upon to defend the Established Church, or to say one word against the Roman Catholic religion; neither was he required to speak in favour of the Pope, in order to injure the Established Church. But be consented to the introduction of this Bill, hearing in mind what was avowed by the noble Lord, that it was not his intention to infringe upon the civil or religious rights of any class of Her Majesty's subjects. In giving his vote for the introduction of the Bill, he considered he was doing so in obedience to the sentiments of the great majority of his constituents: at any rate, for his own part, he was anxious to see what the Bill was before he came to any final judgment upon it. He gave no opinion as to whether the measure should extend to Ireland; but he believed that in assenting to the introduction of the measure in reference to this country he was acting in accordance with the feelings of many of the Roman Catholics of England. He would enable the House to judge as to the right he had for entertaining this opinion. He had received several letters from Roman Catholics of great influence in Manchester and Salford. There were, in fact, no persons who exercised greater influence than they did in both boroughs. They were the constituents of his hon. Friends, as well as his own constituents. He would read an extract from a letter which he had received from one of them. It ran thus:— I feel considerable interest in the matter, and am confident that unless Government will protect us, all our charity-land, and other property given for our churches, will pass into the sole con- trol of the Court of Rome. As an Englishman, I seek to have our charities administered according to the laws of our own country, and not by a foreign Court and under foreign laws. The vote, therefore, which he was now about to give would be given from a conviction that he was voting in favour of the civil and religious liberties of the Roman Catholics, and in the firm belief that the Bill would not be an infringement of the religious rights of any class of Her Majesty's subjects.

MR. F. O'CONNOR

rose to address the House amidst loud cries of "Divide!" He assured hon. Gentlemen that he was going to ask the House to divide. He felt this debate had lasted long enough, and he would give way in the hope that no other hon. Member would ask to ad dress the House.

MR. SCHOLEFIELD

begged for permission to make a few observations. He differed from his hon. Colleague in the vote he was about to give, and also from a great many of his constituents, and, therefore, he begged to explain his reasons for voting against this measure. As a member of the Church of England he could not be supposed to have any sympathy with the proceedings of the Pope or Cardinal Wiseman, which he thought to be impolitic as regarded the interests of the Roman Catholics themselves, in some respects disrespectful to the Crown, and in many ways injurious to the Roman Catholics. He must say also that this measure on the part of the Pope had, to a certain extent, raised a feeling in the country which he regretted to see had been encouraged to some extent; but on the subject of religious liberty his opinion was, that the phrase referred not only to the doctrines of particular sects, but also to the discipline of the Church, and he felt that the discipline of the Catholic Church could not be carried out except in the way the Pope desired to do it, by the appointment of a hierarchy. He thought the Bill was ineffectual for any good purpose, and he could not hesitate to vote against it.

Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 395; Noes 63: Majority 332.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, Sir T. N.	Anson, hon. Col.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Archdall, Capt. M.
Adair, H. E.	Arkwright, G.
Adair, R. A. S.	Ashley, Lord
Adderley, C. B.	Bagot, hon. W.
Alcock, T.	Bagshaw, J.
Anderson, A.	Bailey, J.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Cocks, T. S.
Baldock, E. H.	Codrington, Sir W.
Baldwin, C. B.	Cole, hon. H. A.
Bankes, G.	Coles, H. B.
Baring, H. B.	Collins, W.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.	Colvile, C. R.
Baring, T.	Compton, H. C.
Baring, hon. F.	Conolly, T.
Barnard, E. G.	Copeland, Ald.
Barrington, Visct.	Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Bass, M. T.	Cowan, C.
Bateson, T.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Beckett, W.	Craig, Sir W. G.
Bell, J.	Crowder, R. B.
Bennet, P.	Cubitt, W.
Berkeley, Adm.	Currie, H.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Dalrymple, Capt.
Berkeley, hon. G. F.	Dashwood, Sir G. H.
Berkeley, C. L. G.	Davies, D. A. S.
Bernal, R.	Deedes, W.
Bernard, Visct.	D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.
Best, J.	Disraeli, B.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Divett, E.
Blackstone, W. S.	Dod, J. W.
Blair, S.	Dodd, G.
Blandford, Marq. of	Drax, J. S. W. S. E.
Booker, T. W.	Drumlanrig, Visct.
Booth, Sir R. G.	Drummond, H.
Bowles, Adm.	Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.
Boyd, J.	Duke, Sir J.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Duncan, Visct.
Bramston, T. W.	Duncan, G.
Bremridge, R.	Duncombe, hon. O.
Brisco, M.	Duncuft, J.
Broadley, H.	Dundas, Adm.
Broadwood, H.	Dundas, G.
Brocklehurst, J.	Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.
Brockman, E. D.	Dunne, Col.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Du Pre, C. G.
Brotherton, J.	East, Sir J. B.
Brown, H.	Ebrington, Visct.
Brown, W.	Edwards, H.
Bruce, Lord E.	Egerton, W. T.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Bruen, Col.	Ellice, E.
Buck, L. W.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Emlyn, Visct.
Bunbury, W. M.	Enfield, Visct.
Bunbury, E. H.	Estcourt, J. B. B.
Burghley, Lord	Euston, Earl of
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Evans, J.
Busfeild, W.	Evans, W.
Buxton, Sir E. N.	Evelyn, W. J.
Calvert, F.	Ewart, W.
Cardwell, E.	Farnham, E. B.
Carew, W. H. P.	Farrer, J.
Carter, J. B.	Fellowes, E.
Caulfield, J.	Fergus, J.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Ferguson, Col.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Ferguson, Sir R. J. W.
Chaplin, W. J.	Fitz Patrick, rt. hn.
Chichester, Lord J. L.	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Childers, J. W.	Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.
Christopher, R. A.	Foley, J. H. H.
Christy, S.	Forbes, W.
Clay, J.	Forester, hon. G. C. W.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Forster, M.
Clifford, H. M.	Fox, S. W. L.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Freestun, Col.
Clive, H. B.	Frewen, C. H.
Cobbold, J. C.	Fuller, A. E.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.	Galway, Visct.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.	Gaskell, J. M.

Goddard, A. L.	Legh, G. C.
Gooch, E. S.	Lemon, Sir C.
Gordon, Adm.	Lennard, T. B.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Lennox, Lord A. G.
Granby, Marq. of	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Greenall, G.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Grenfell, C. W.	Lewis, G. C.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Lindsey, hon. Col.
Grey, R. W.	Littleton, hon. E. R.
Grogan, E.	Locke, J.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Lockhart, A. E.
Gwyn, H.	Lockhart, W.
Hall, Sir B.	Lopes, Sir R.
Hall, Col.	Loveden, P.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Lowther, H.
Halsey, T. P.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Hamilton, G. A.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Hamilton, J. H.	Mackie, J.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Macnaghten, Sir E.
Hanmer, Sir J.	M'Gregor, J.
Harris, hon. Capt.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Harris, R.	Mandeville, Visct.
Hastie, A.	Mangles, R. D.
Hastie, A.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Hatchell, rt. hon. J.	Manners, Lord J.
Hawes, B.	Marshall, J. G.
Hayes, Sir E.	Marshall, W.
Headlam, T. E.	Martin, C. W.
Heald, J.	Masterman, J.
Heathcoat, J.	Matheson, A.
Heathcote, G. J.	Matheson, J.
Heneage, G. H. W.	Matheson, Col.
Heneage, E.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Henley, J. W.	Maunsell, T. P.
Herbert, rt. hon. S.	Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Meux, Sir H.
Hervey, Lord A.	Miles, P. W. S.
Heywood, J.	Miles, W.
Hildyard, R. C.	Milner, W. M. E.
Hill, Lord E.	Milnes, R. M.
Hindley, C.	Mitchell, T. A.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Molesworth, Sir W.
Hodges, T. L.	Moody, C. A.
Hodges, T. T.	Morgan, O.
Hodgson, W. N.	Morison, Sir W.
Hogg, Sir J. W.	Morris, D.
Hollond, R.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Hood, Sir A.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Hornby, J.	Mullings, J. R.
Hotham, Lord	Muntz, G. F.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Napier, J.
Howard, hon. J. K.	Neeld, J.
Howard, hon. E. G. G.	Newdegate, C. N.
Hudson, G.	Noel, hon. G. J.
Humphery, Ald.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Hutt, W.	Ossulston, Lord
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Owen, Sir J.
Jackson, W.	Paget, Lord A.
Jermyn, Earl	Paget, Lord C.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Palmer, R.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Palmerston, Visct.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.	Parker, J.
Jones, Capt.	Patten, J. W.
Ker, R.	Peel, Col.
Kershaw, J.	Peel, F.
Kildare, Marq. of	Pelham, hon. D. A.
King, hon. P. J. L.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Knox, Col.	Perfect, R.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Peto, S. M.
Lacy, H. C.	Pigott, F.
Langston, J. H.	Pilkington, J.
Lascelles, hon. E.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Plumptre, J. P.

Powlett, Lord W.	Stuart, Lord J.
Price, Sir R.	Stuart, H.
Prime, R.	Stuart, J.
Pugh, D.	Sturt, H. G.
Reid, Col.	Taylor, T. E.
Renton, J. C.	Thicknesse R. A.
Repton, G. W. J.	Thompson, Col.
Ricardo, O.	Thompson, Ald.
Rice, E. R.	Thornely, T.
Rich, H.	Thornhill, G.
Richards, R.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Robartes, T. J. A.	Tollemache, J.
Romilly, Col.	Townley, R. G.
Romilly, Sir J.	Townshend, Capt.
Rumbold, C. E.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Russell, Lord J.	Tufnell, rt. hon. H.
Russell, F. C. H.	Turner, G. J.
Sandars, G.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Sandars, J.	Verner, Sir W.
Scott, hon. F.	Verney, Sir H.
Scrope, G. P.	Villiers, hon. C.
Seaham, Visct.	Wakley, T.
Seymour, H. D.	Walpole, S. H.
Seymour, Lord	Walter, J.
Shafto, R. D.	Watkins, Col. L.
Shelburne, Earl of	Welby, G. E.
Sibthorp, Col.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Sidney, Ald.	West, F. R.
Slaney, R. A.	Westhead, J. P. B.
Smith, J. A.	Wigram, L. T.
Smith, M. T.	Williams, J.
Smyth, J. G.	Williams, W.
Somerset, Capt.	Williamson, Sir H.
Somerville, rt. hn.Sir W.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Sotheron, T. H. S.	Wilson, J.
Spearman, H. J.	Wilson, M.
Spooner, R.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Stafford, A.	Wood, W. P.
Stanford, J. F.	Worcester, Marq. of
Stanley, E.	Wyld, J.
Stanley, hon. E. H.	Wynn, H. W. W.
Stanley, hon. W. O.	Wyvill, M.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Stanton, W. H.	TELLERS.
Staunton, Sir G. T.	Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Strickland, Sir G.	Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Hope, A.
	Howard, P. H.
Blake, M. J.	Hutchins, E. J.
Blewitt, R. J.	Keating, R.
Bright, J.	Keogh, W.
Butler, P. S.	Lawless, hon. C.
Clements, hon. C. S.	M'Cullagh, W. T.
Cobden, R.	Magan, W. H.
Corbally, M. E.	Meagher, T.
Devereux, J. T.	Mahon, The O'Gorman
Fagan, W.	Monsell, W.
Fagan, J.	O'Brien, Sir T.
Fortescue, C.	O'Connell, J.
Fox, R. M.	O'Connell, M.
Fox, W. J.	O'Connell, M. J.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	O'Connor, F.
Goold, W.	O'Flaherty, A.
Grace, O. D. J.	Oswald, A.
Grattan, H.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Greene, J.	Power, Dr.
Henry, A.	Power, N.
Heyworth, L.	Reynolds, J.
Higgins, G. G. O.	Sadleir, J.

Scholefield, W.	Tenison, E. K.
Scully, F.	Towneley, J.
Simeon, J.	Trelawny, J. S.
Smith, J. B.	Wall, C. B.
Smythe, hon. G.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Somers, J. P.	Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Stuart, Lord D.
Sullivan, M.	TELLERS.
Talbot, J. H.	Roche, E. B.
Tancred, H. W.	Moore, G. H.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord John Russell, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Attorney General.

The House adjourned at half-after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.