HC Deb 25 March 1851 vol 115 cc514-618

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [14th March],—Debate resumed.

MR. HOBHOUSE

Sir, in moving the adjournment of the debate at the close of our last sitting, I beg to assure the House that I was not actuated by any personal vanity, but I took this step because there was a general understanding that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and others of considerable influence, were anxious to state their opinions upon this subject. I will now take the opportunity of saying that the more I have listened to the arguments which have been addressed to the House, the more time and leisure I have had to examine and sift the question, the more have I become fortified in my original conviction, which was always been opposed to any legislation in the case. Sir, if I rightly understand the arguments which have been adduced in favour of the principle of legislation, they are chiefly these: that an insult has been levelled at the Queen; that in Her character of First Magistrate, and Supreme Head of the Church, Her prerogative and authority have been invaded; and that the independence of this nation has been assailed by the act of the Pope for the appointment of bishops with territorial titles. To reduce the proposition to the simplest expression, and place it in the light of a logical formula, it would appear thus: "The Queen is in this country the sole fountain of honour; territorial bishoprics are titles of honour; therefore the Pope has no right to establish those bishoprics. Such is the fair representation of the principal argument in support of the Bill. But it appears to me that a fallacy pervades this proposition; that hon. Gentlemen have not sufficiently considered the meaning of the word "bishop;" that they have not separated the essence from the accident, in their contemplation of the measure before the House. They have not separated the temporal from the spiritual, and hence they nave fallen into a great constitutional error. In order to show the proper meaning of the appellation of "bishop," it will be necessary to look for a moment at their history, and to see how they were appointed in earlier times. Nobody will dispute that the original mode in which they were appointed was by the choice of the clergy and laity; the appointment was per clerum et popu-lum. But the elections, in process of time, becoming tumultuous, and probably dangerous to the peace and good order of the different parts of Europe in which they took place, the Sovereign claimed a right to the confirmation and investiture of temporalities, now gradually annexed to the office; and previous to his investiture the bishop could neither be consecrated, nor receive, the profits of his see. This is the simple history of the election of bishops. The functions which they had been called upon to exercise were, in essence, solely spiritual. Their temporal power was a mere accident, belonging to them in virtue simply of the rights conferred upon them by the different sovereigns of Europe, but not necessarily attached to the episcopal office. Stripping from the bishops all their external and temporal attributes, they are, in reality, nothing but ministers of religion, and their designation is rather in the nature of an office, than in the nature of a title. Sir, I can no more consider the word "bishop" in the character of an honour or title, than the words physician, barrister, or the like. Our legislation is founded on a fallacy. This is my first abjection to the Bill. But, in either view of the case, fallacy or no fallacy, we are confessedly legislating against names or titles rather than things. It is unworthy of the wisdom of this House and of this great country that we should spend our time upon such trifles. We ought not to prohibit the sign while we allow the thing signified. There is in this Bill nothing opposed to the institution of Roman Catholic bishops—nothing to interfere with Roman Catholic bishops in the ministration of religion. All that is forbidden is the assumption of certain names. In the eyes of an opponent of the Bill, this can be no demerit; but why pursue the shadow when the substance is out of reach? It is, I repeat, unworthy of the House and of the country that we should mix ourselves up in such a matter. But this is not the first time in our history that a confusion of ideas has arisen from indefinite terms; that people have been inclined to see in a name some danger, which they could not possibly apprehend if that name were cast out of the way. On a former day I was consulting in our library a book of some authority, as well as interest, namely, a History of Scotland, by Archbishop Spottiswoode, Archbishop of St. Andrew's, and Privy Councillor to King Charles I. Treating of that period of the sixteenth century when the Reformers, successful in their struggle with Rome, had begun to discuss among themselves the question of Episcopacy or Presbyterianism, and recording a project of the year 1572 for a change of names, in order to reconcile the people to the spirit of the subsisting arrangements of the old Church, he writes— In August thereafter [i. e., in 1572], the Assembly of the Church, meeting again at Perth, report was made of these conclusions, and exception taken by some at the titles of archbishop, dean, archdeacon, chancellor, and chapter, as being popish and offensive to the ears of good Christians; whereupon it was declared, that by using these titles they meant not to allow of popish superstition in any sort, wishing the same to be changed to others not so scandalous; as the name of bishop to be hereafter used for archbishop, the chapter to be called the bishop's assembly, the dean to be called the moderator of the said assembly; and for the titles of archdeacon, chancellor, abbot, and prior, that some should be appointed to consider how far these functions did extend, and give their opinion for the interchange thereof with others more agreeable to the Word, and the policy of the best I reformed churches, reporting their opinions at the next asssembly. But I do not find that any such report was made; like it is, the wiser sort esteemed there was no cause to stumble at titles where the office was thought necessary and lawful. Sir, there is good sense in every word of this, and it affords a precedent for our own course of action. We are now making a stumbling-block of names, and wasting the precious time of the House, when we had; much better be proceeding with business of graver importance. Another argument, the gravamen indeed of the charge, is, that these appointments are derived from a foreign source. But there is nothing new in this, nothing which does not equally apply to every Papal proceeding. We are all aware that a foreign spiritual jurisdiction is exercised in this country, and that it is not introduced now for the first time; so that I cannot think there is anything in this which can give matter of offence. But is it of the essence of the case that this; should be done by a foreign authority? Why, in one case there has been an English Pope, and very likely there may be another: wherefore, then, we should object to this foreign delegation of powers in religious matters, I own I cannot see. And when the insult to the Grown is spoken of, let me remind hon. Gentlemen that it applies as much to the Episcopal Church of Scotland as to the Church of Rome. The danger may be greater from the Roman Catholics; but the insult is the same whether the Scottish Episcopal Church assume these titles, or whether it be done by bishops of a Romish origin. I have formed a conclusion from which I think I cannot change, that we have no right to interfere with these episcopal appointments by the Bishop of Rome. Sir, I take Protestant ground upon this question. I accept the right of private judgment in adopting Protestantism: and that right, which I claim as a Protestant, I will concede to a Roman Catholic. It is upon Protestant grounds and principles, it is in virtue of the great and glorious Reformation—an event which unshackled the minds of men, and gave us freedom of thought and worship, freedom of examining our bibles—that I take my stand in defending the Roman Catholic Church. Then there has been another argument frequently adduced in the debate, quite as void of foundation as the rest. It is said, that the Pope and the Church of Rome stand in a position different from any other Church, because the Pope mixes himself up with temporal concerns. Now, it is, I admit, too much the fashion of all public assemblies and corporate bodies to act upon this principle, and meddle with matters in which they have no call to interfere. I have yet to learn that the College of Physicians was specially incorporated to consult upon religion, and to address the Crown or either House of Parliament upon this subject; or that the Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors were incorporated with a view of this kind; or that the body of Barristers was instituted for the sake of advising the State upon questions connected with the Roman Catholic religion—objects entirely foreign to their usual pursuits, and tending to distract their attention, if not to disturb their harmony. I freely admit the right of every man in his individual capacity to do in this respect as seems best to him; but it does not belong to professional bodies of men, be they what they may, to act collectively in such cases. Hon. Gentlemen, then, are welcome to an argument of rather wider scope than suits their wishes, the application of which cannot stop at the Roman Catholics, but must extend to nearly all public bodies, including the most zealously Protestant, in the country—a reductio ad absurdum decisive of its futility, for the Romish Church is far from the only institution, here or elsewhere, which has deviated from its first bounds, and exceeded the limits of its special jurisdiction. But I believe there is not a Roman Catholic Gentleman of this House, who will subscribe to the slavish doctrine that the Pope has a right to exercise his functions in temporal concerns over Roman Catholics. Sir, they repudiate a notion of that kind. Our Roman Catholic ancestors continually repelled the exercise of such a power, and I cannot believe that any one is so degenerate now-a-days as to subscribe to such a doctrine. We have seen too many proofs to the contrary. We have seen that when questions regarding civil liberty have been discussed, our Roman Catholic brethren in this House have taken part in the battle, and aided us in endeavouring to gain a step in the cause of improvement and reform. It is, then, quite an untenable position to hold, whatever the pretensions of past ages, that the Romish Church now claims to direct the consciences of her members in temporal matters. Sir, I wish to call the attention of the House on this point to a case well worthy of their consideration, which was canvassed in the year 1788. In a voluminous book, which has this Session been laid upon our table, being a reprint of an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons in 1816, before whom the relations of the Roman Catholics abroad to their various Sovereigns and Government underwent a very thorough examination, it is stated that these questions were in 1788 submitted by no less a man than Mr. Pitt to six Roman Catholic Universities:— 1. Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence whatsoever within the realm of England? 2. Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance upon any pretext whatsoever? 3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transaction either of a public or a private nature? Now mark the answers, which were those of a body of men in six of the principal Universities, many of whom were utterly surprised that such questions should have been put. The Faculty of Divinity of Louvain— struck with astonishment that such questions should, at the end of this eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned body by inhabitants of a kingdom that glories in the talents and discernment of its natives, answers every one of them in the negative. The answers of Paris, Douay, Alcala, Valladolid, and Salamanca, are the same. Louvain lays down propositions destructive of these doctrines; the third of which is— It follows, that the sovereign power of the State is in no wise (not even indirectly, as it is termed) subject to or dependent upon any other Power, though it be a spiritual power, or even though it be instituted for eternal salvation; "and adds," which she believes that, at this day, there is no society of learned men, nor any one learned man, in the whole Catholic world, who would not he ready to subscribe to them, as it is said, with both hands. Paris answers that in 1626 a centure was pronounced by the faculty of divinity against Santarellus for maintaining the doctrine that the spiritual power extended (indirectly) to temporals:— In this censure the other faculties of the University of Paris, and several other universities in France, as Toulouse, Valence, Bordeaux, Poictiers, Caen, and Rheims, concurred with great applause. This shows that there is not necessarily inherent in the Roman Catholic Church any opinion to the effect that the Pope can interfere in things temporal. It is universally reprobated by the Roman Catholics. A great deal has been said about the synodical action of the Church of Rome, and we have been menaced, as a consequence, with the introduction of the canon law. I am surprised, Sir, that hon. Gentlemen should suffer themselves to be alarmed by a phantom of this sort. Surely hon. Gentlemen cannot be ignorant that the canon law is already in operation in several courts of this country, subject, indeed, to the common law of the land, as a lex sub graviori lege, but still existing here, and found to be neither immoral nor dangerous. Why, it might be supposed, from the speeches made, that there was something very horrible about this canon law—that it prescribes a rule of conduct at variance with morality—yet it has long been practised in the midst of our native institutions. A consultation of Blackstone, or any of our great legists, will show that in his country the canon law is recognised on sufferance, but is overridden by the common law of the land. The canon law, so far as permitted by the common law, does at present exist; but the common law has the right to restrain any innovations or processes of the canon law at variance with our jurisdiction at Westminster, and to punish, in certain cases, the officers who administer that law; and from all the courts in this kingdom, in which the canon law is administered, there is an appeal to the Crown. Sir, it cannot be too often impressed upon gentlemen that this canon law has been, and still is, in force in several of our courts; and it will continue to be, except in cases where the Court of Queen's Bench shall decide that the powers exercised are contrary to the common or statute law. The canon law is desired by the Roman Catholics, because they wish to have a body of men of great dignity and importance to their Church presiding over them—not, as at present, to be subject to a capricious rule; but it must be exercised under the laws, which are now sufficient to restrain any possible excess of its authority. Sir, I put it to the noble Lord whether it is proper or becoming, whether it is not disgraceful, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, to revive in the country the cry of "No Popery" for such miserable shadows as these? Some of the scenes which took place in the holidays were such as to cast a stain upon our national character, which it may take many years to efface. When I reflect on the interruptions offered to the performance of divine service, and call to mind that one conscientious minister of the Church of England was placed under the protection of a body of the police, I see in this something most revolting, which may tarnish our fame, and lower us in the opinion of the nations of Europe. Sir, I do not profess to be an admirer, nor am I qualified to be the apologist, of certain doctrines which have fallen under the castigation of the noble Lord; but when I remember that Bishop Butler, because he adopted certain certain visible signs in his religion, and addressed his clergy of the diocese of Durham, in 1751, for the revival of obsolete services, and upon the necessity of external religion, feeling that the compound nature of mind and body required a double appeal to the intellect and senses—when I remember that this eminent man, the powerful champion of revealed religion, was branded as a Papist, I think the Tractarians can afford to have those imputations cast upon them, and to suffer in company with such a man as the author of the Analogy. Let it not be supposed that we are at the conclusion of this question—we are only on its threshold. Seeing that this is the case, and that no guarantee can be given of a successful issue to the struggle, or that any advantage will result, I feel it my duty to oppose the measure. Experience teaches us that in almost every religious contest, conscience has prevailed over law. Sir, I do not deny that a great agitation, a strong feeling, has existed in this country upon the subject; but it has been greatly fostered, and a factitious importance has been given to it, by those in high places. It has been contended in the House, and out of the House, that because Rome was intolerant, we are to be intolerant; in a word, that intolerance must be met with its own weapons—a theory wholly repugnant to that liberality of sentiment upon which the Protestants especially pride themselves. Are we to say that the rule of other States is to be the guide of our own conduct?—that, living under a free Government, with free institutions, we are to look to foreign countries for our law?—that when they follow a course which is despotic and intolerant (assuming it to be so), their intolerance is to be the measure of our freedom? The noble Lord the Member for Bath has called the attention of the House to the advertisements so frequent in the newspapers concerning the celebration of divine service in the Romish Church. The noble Lord referred to them by way of illustration as evidence of a system; but there are others who mean more, and would call on the House to legislate for the suppression of doctrines which they dislike. It appears to me that it is not for this House to determine what is error and what is truth, but that this is a matter which must be left to each person's own conscientious convictions. Yet I believe that a great portion of the agitation which was excited in the country had this for its object; and that a great many who attended the public meetings were looking to the House for some law to prevent the conversion of persons to the Roman Catholic faith. They were afraid that the gorgeous ceremonies of the Roman Catholic worship would win over many of the Protestants. But, Sir, if the people of England prefer a gorgeous worship and splendid ceremonials to a simpler form of service, I do not see what right the House of Commons has to interfere. Sir, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs told us that this was the complement of the Catholic Relief Act, I a fulfilment of the spirit of the measure, I which, in opposition to the letter, might be construed to intend the prohibition of new, as well as existing titles. But, even upon this hypothesis, the Bill before us goes beyond the Catholic Relief Act, which forbids; the assumption of these titles in England and Ireland only, while the present Bill embraces Scotland. Sir, it seems to me that if the ministers of religion, instead of involving themselves in unseemly contentions, would betake themselves to their holy functions, they would find vice and crime and wretchedness enough to overcome; and I am sure they might be more usefully employed in that way than in raking up I religious animosity and discord. Let the clergymen of the Established Church abstain from inflaming the passions of the populace against the Roman Catholics,; and act side by side with their Roman Catholic brethren in fulfilment of the common mission with which they have been, intrusted by their Great Master. This is the course I would recommend the Church of England to pursue, if she wishes to gain admiration, respect, and esteem. I believe the Roman Catholic Church ought not to be encouraged, but at the same time we ought not to endeavour to repress her by legislative action, Sir, if I read the signs of the times aright, the Church of England is much more threatened on the side of infidelity and irreligion than on the side of Romanism. These debates will give great advantage to the scoffer and the infidel, by showing that the religion which was intended to preach peace, has been made the subject of discord and controversy. The common religion of the two churches ought to be a bond of union between them against external danger. The schismatic character of these, appointments has been condemned; and it has been asserted that there can be but one single bishop of a particular diocese. But the doctrine which might be applicable before the Reformation, is not applicable at the present day. It suited the existence of one communion, but is out of place now that there are so many. It is known that the Church of Rome does not recognise the validity of the orders of the Church of England, though the Church of England does allow the validity of hers; and in considering whether any insult has been offered, the question ought to be looked at in a Roman Catholic point of view. They cannot mean to insult the Establishment, whose very existence they have from the first refused to acknowledge. If my sincere advice could prevail with the Church of England, I would say, "Treat the Roman Catholics as they treat you. They disavow the existence of your Church—you cannot, agreeably to your principles, disavow the existence of their bishops—but that which you can disavow is, that Cardinal Wiseman is Archbishop of Westminster." For this purpose legislation is needless. Legislation is rather a recognition of the title. I would say, "Pass the thing by as a shadow, as a thing non-existent, and, without vitality, as the Roman Catholics treat the bishops of your Church." Sir, I fear that the noble Lord has entered on a course in which it will be difficult for him to advance with safety, or retreat with honour. I would, however, recommend him to revoke what he has done—to advise He Majesty not to feel insulted by the conduct of the Pope; and I entreat the noble Lord, as he values the peace, the order, the welfare, the prosperity, and the security of the empire, to desist from pressing further this fatal Bill.

MR. PORTAL

said, he was fully sensible of the disadvantages under which he laboured in presenting himself to the House at this late period of the debate; he had to contend not only with the difficulty which every one must feel who addressed the House for the first time, but with the obvious disadvantage of attempting to speak upon a question of which the House was already weary, and every argument of which was well nigh exhausted by those speakers who had taken part in the debate. But yet he trusted to the kindness and generosity of the House for permission to state the reasons which would induce him to record his vote against the second reading of the Bill. He could not admit that the Bill was that innocent and judicious mixture of good and evil which it was held to be by some of its supporters; so far from that, it appeared to him that whilst the measure was utterly impotent for good, it was very powerful for evil. It appeared to him calculated to foment and perpetuate in this country sectarian agitation and discord. As regarded Ireland, he found that its effects would be still more baneful than in this country, for it was eminently calculated to revive in that land that religious strife which had been one of the main causes of its misfortunes, while it would not effect one, single object which it professed to aim at. The Sill was just large enough to irritate the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and not large enough to satisfy the Protestants of England. He could not help observing in many of the speeches of those who had supported the second reading of the Bill, that they based their support of the measure on their conscientious antipathy and hostility to the Romish Church. He did not use the word Romish offensively, and hoped that right hon. Members would not for a moment suppose that he meant any offence to their creed. He believed many hon. Members would vote for the Bill because of their earnest desire to arrest the progress of Roman Catholicism in this country, and because they believed the Pope's power was dangerous to the civil as well as to the religious liberty of this kingdom. Now, to those who entertained such opinions, he would say that they were engaged in a vain endeavour to arrest by legislation that which was entirely beyond the control of Parliament—that they were vainly seeking to control an influence which religion alone exercised—that influence which faith exercised over the minds and consciences of men. This was not the place to discuss the doctrines, or, if they would, the corruptions of the Romish Church; but though so much had been said upon this subject, the Bill itself did not profess to have any concern whatever with those doctrines or corruptions. He would at once admit that he fully shared in the general feeling of indignation which the recent act of the Pope had aroused in all classes in the kingdom. He did not take the same view of this aggression as had been taken by most hon. Members on his side of the House; but he felt strongly that it was a twofold aggression; an ecclesiastical aggression, in the first place, upon the rights and jurisdiction of that Church whose very existence it ignored; bishops had been forced upon sees already-occupied by bishops of our Church, and in that a spiritual invasion had been attempted, calculated to excite the resentment of Churchmen: there had also been a temporal aggression; a foreign prince had presumed to interfere in the internal affairs of this country, regardless of the convenience or of the safety of the State. He would not say a word more on the subject of ecclesiastical aggression. Strongly as he might feel upon the question, he thought its discussion altogether unsuited to the House of Commons: he took the liberty of observing, at the same time, that it was not to the arm of the State that the Church must look to repel that aggression—she had power within herself to protect her against all opponents; and he ventured to suggest a doubt whether the dangers which the Church would ever sustain from the interference of the State, would not be far greater than any she had to fear from the Church of Rome. He much doubted whether the Church had so much to fear from the Pope of Rome as from the Pope of Downing-street; whether she had not less reason to dread the bulls which issued from the Flaminian Gate, than the pastoral letters from the Treasury; whether she ought not to be less alarmed at the rescript for the establishment of a hierarchy, than at the hasty effusion of an off-handed Premier. Then how would they deal with this temporal aggression? The Bill left the question of aggression, to all practical purposes, precisely where it found it—and that it did not effect its professed object must be obvious to all. Its provisions were utterly inconsistent with the arguments adduced in its favour. To deal with the Pope as a foreign potentate, by passing a law which they admitted, and almost hoped, would be inoperative, was surely a most undignified mode of procedure; they did not attempt to overthrow his acts, or to undo that which he had done—they did not even demand reparation or satisfaction for the insult they said he had offered; but they passed by all they complained of, merely entering a sort of protest. Was this con-duet worthy of a great nation—was it conduct which an equal ought to adopt to an equal—did it not seem rather the feeble resource of an inferior towards his oppressor? If they would legislate at all on this subject, let them legislate effectually—if they were determined not to deal with the acts of the Pope as they would deal with aggressions from other sovereigns—if they were resolved to pass them by unnoticed, and would be content to deal with their own subjects who should recognise his authority, let them at least be consistent in so doing, and not irritate if they could not execute. To interfere with consistency, they would only do so on the unhappy principle that any recognition of that foreign Power was in itself an offence, and a bar to the enjoyment of those privileges which belonged to Englishmen. We had of late years been pursuing a different line of policy, and gradually enlarging the bounds of civil and religious freedom. It was left for the noble Lord to retrace that policy for which he had so long and successfully contended, and which it was hoped had been for ever settled by the Emancipation Act. In such a course he would not participate; but the arguments of the noble Lord in favour of this Bill, if they were good for anything, were good for that. Believing the Bill to be a mockery and a delusion, unworthy of the age, of the wisdom of this Assembly, and of the dignity of this great nation, he would vote against the second reading.

MR. J. O'CONNELL

was willing, on behalf of his Roman Catholic brethren, to make any declaration, however strong and comprehensive, for the purpose of satisfying his Protestant fellow-subjects, that the Pope had no temporal jurisdiction in this kingdom. He regretted the continuance of this protracted discussion, as likely to add to the venom of religious discord already too active; but all the blame rested with the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The Roman Catholic religion had been attacked by the Bill, and the Roman Catholic Members should of course stand up in its defence. All the old exploded calumnies had been revived against them and their religion, and accusations the most insulting and untrue had been levelled not only against the practices but against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. But notwithstanding these unjust attacks, he was happy to say that no Roman Catholic Member had lowered himself and his cause by having recourse to retaliation. Nothing had yet been said that had much advanced the case in favour of the Bill which had been introduced by the noble Lord to gratify the unworthy feeling called forth by the publication of his letter. Why did not the noble Lord endeavour to obtain unity of sentiment in his own Church on the subject, for there one of the bishops had refused to sign an address, because he did not fully recognise Her Majesty's supremacy even over the Protestant religion? No Crown lawyer had risked his reputation by asserting that the supremacy of the Crown in religious matters was consonant with common law. He would, however, not enter into that matter, because the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, had in a very few sentences completely refuted everything that had been advanced on the point. The people of Ireland would fully appreciate the right hon. Baronet's sentiments, and his desire to place them on an equality, and treat them as brethren. He trusted the time would come when the people of the three countries would agree that the right lion. Baronet was the proper person to entrust with power. The kings of England who had disputed the supremacy of the Pope, had been those who had shown no regard for the rights of their subjects whether in temporals or spirituals, and they had disputed the Pope's supremacy only when there had been a contest about the Papacy itself. The noble Lord had referred to what he called the Gallican liberties, but what he (Mr. O'Con-nell) preferred to call the Gallican slavery. True it was, that some good men were so mistaken as to give their assent to those celebrated propositions; but, after all, they had only exchanged the mild government of the Church for the iron yoke of civil domination. The noble Lord had spoken of Bossuet and Fenelon, but he had forgotten to state that they had afterwards retracted their opinions. He had listened with very great pain to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, and he thought every right-thinking man had participated in the, sorrow he felt at hearing such expressions fall from the son of such a man as the late Alderman Wood, or even from a Gentleman of such antecedents as those of the hon. and learned Member himself. He had spoken of the Siccardi, laws; but surely, with his habits of thought as a lawyer, he must have known that it was in the very primer of international law, that no compact entered into by two States—and the Siccardi laws were a compact made between the Pope and the State of Sardinia no longer ago than ten years since—ought to be set aside, without at least communicating the intention to the other party, and accompanying the intimation with a statement of the reasons why an alteration was desired. Besides, the hon. Members who had alluded to the affair of Santa Rosas, had taken no notice of the persecution which had been suffered by the Archbishops of Turing and of Cagliari, and by the servites, the monks, or clergymen, who served the principal church in Sardinia, merely for doing their duty. It was untrue that the unhappy Minister had been refused the last rites of the Church. He received absolution, and a question having arisen as to whether he could receive the viaticum until he had made a public recantation of what he had already retracted in private, an appeal was made to the bishop, and in the interim Santa Rosas died. He could not congratulate the noble Lord on the state of Sardinia. Siccardi, after having pandered to the worst passions and prejudices, was now meeting the fate that justly attends all Ministers who abuse the powers of their high station to unworthy ends; and was being cast aside after the disturbers of public order and enemies of religion had used him for the purposes of the hour. The noble Lord and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Atfairs seemed to be most ill-omened sympathisers, for wherever they took an interest in the affairs of a foreign country, there disaster was certain to ensue. He had no hesitation in predicting that it would be in Sardinia as it had been in Rome as well as in other countries, and preeminently in Switzerland. The Red Republicans, incited instead of being satisfied by the unworthy concessions already made them, would go on from their attack on the altar to invade the throne and upset the constitution of the country. He, infinitely regretted to have heard in that House a speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth—a speech which gave indications of much talent and promise, but one which must increase the regret felt in that House for the loss of that hon. Gentleman's distinguished father. It was sad, indeed, to see a young man com- mencing his career with such an exhibition of old and exploded bigotry. He (Mr. O'Connell) could only hope that the hon. Baronet would prove splendide mendax to his present views, and would follow the course which was pursued by his younger relative. In alluding to Switzerland, the hon. Baronet had severely reproached the Catholic cantons for their audacity; but he did not employ one word of reprobation respecting the manner in which the exercise of their rights by the Catholics had been punished by the anarchists—not one word of the banishment of priests and of helpless nuns; and not one word of that most unheard of outrage by which those who, when the Free Corps first invaded Lucerne, had maintained order and the authority of the law, were, after the lapse of two years, brought before the courts of justice and punished by fine. The noble Lord the Minister of Foreign Afairs had said, that the Protestant majority had a right to interfere even in the matter of education in the Catholic cantons, because of their being in a majority. But could such a doctrine be really maintained? He (Mr. O'Connell) considered that it was a circumstance of considerable importance to the people in Ireland, for although they were in a majority there, yet they were a I minority in the entire empire. Was it I intended that the principle should be applied at home, and that in the composite kingdom of Great Britain the minority were to be subject to every species of robbery and persecution? He spoke of no unreasonable fear; there were grounds for it both in the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and in that of the hon. and learned SolicitorGeneral—speeches which must have been heard by every right-minded man with feelings of deep pain. He (Mr. O'Connell) should like to hear why no answer had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the eminent legal opinion which had been put forward, from which it appeared that the first clause of the Bill really carried with it all the venom, and would have all the practical effect, of the clauses which have been expunged. There was one subject in connexion with the Bill to which he wished to draw attention. He was willing to admit that the bench of Ireland was filled by honourable and upright men. In the conduct, for instance, of Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Lefroy, notwithstanding the part they had taken in the very bitter debates in that House, there could not now be detected the slightest trace of their former political opinions. Still, when matters of religion were concerned, it was not safe to rely upon the forbearance of Judges. In the Court of Chancery, a short time ago, the children of a Catholic were ordered to be delivered into the custody of a Protestant uncle, to he brought up in his faith, on the extraordinary presumption that their father was indifferent about his religion, because he had been seen to eat meat on a Friday, and had on a few occasions neglected to attend mass. Another dignitary of the Court of Chancery, before whom in his capacity as Master, Catholic trusts were continually being decided on, was notorious for having his name prominent on every placard of an Anti-Catholic meeting. Again, at the assizes of Kerry, where some disturbances had occurred in consequence of the attempts which had been made by the Protestants to seduce the starving peasantry from their religion, by the holy arguments of bread and soup, the Judge went out of his way to censure the priests, although there was not a tittle of evidence to show that they had been in the slightest manner mixed up in the affair. He did, therefore, feel much anxiety that nothing should be left to the discretion of the Judges, but that the law should be well defined, for there was no telling how they would act, if any charitable bequest or issue arising out of it should come before them. The Catholic Primate of all Ireland had been recently made, in a peculiar manner, the subject of attack, and several speakers, in the course of that debate, had alluded to him with great unfairness, and with an entire disregard of facts. Dr. Cullen had not been, as was stated, wholly ignorant of Ireland at the time of his appointment. He had been the agent of the Catholic bishops at Borne, and therefore had reason to be most intimately acquainted with the affairs of Ireland. It was not true, as had been asserted by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that Dr. Cullen was an Italian monk; he was a secular priest. The act of the Pope in appointing Dr. Cullen was not a novel one. The consent of the bishops in Ireland, as a preliminary to the appointment of the Primate, was quite a novel circumstance. It was not a right, it was only a custom, which might be revoked at the pleasure of the Tope. He did revoke it in this instance, and for the most laudable purpose. He found the episcopacy in Ireland divided against itself by the arts and blandishments of the Government, and, fearing to give a triumph to either section, the Pope took the matter into his own hands. He made the appointment of Dr. Cullen, and Ireland had reason to be proud of the choice. Some extracts from his pastorals would show what manner of man this was whom they had thus been shamefully maligning. Referring to the secret societies of Ireland, Dr. Cullen had thus spoken in a recent pastoral:— They have been a scourge and reproach to the country, and no one can think of the evils which have been caused by them without shedding bitter tears. In reference to the respective jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical, and civil Powers, he said— While we are obliged to give to God the things which are God's, so we are to give to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; that is, it is our clear duty to be submissive to the established order in the land in temporal things. Even when groaning under awful persecutions, the early Christians thought it right to submit to the ruling Powers of the day. If any persons refuse to listen to your instructions in these things, give me their names, and I will give you the power to pass on them the awful sentence of excommunication, by which they shall be cut off from the bosom of that Church out of which there is no salvation." "It is better to suffer death itself than to commit the slightest sin." "We may lawfully endeavour to get our grievances redressed; but, in doing so, we are never to take vengeance into our own hands, or resist the State powers, whatever they may be. Such were some of the sentiments of Dr. Cullen. Never did prelate speak more worthily to his flock; and, as he spoke, so he practised. He (Mr. O'Connell) would now refer to the Synod of Thurles. Was it to be said that, in a free country, the Catholic prelates were not to be allowed to meet together? It was impossible to prevent it. The deliberations of the synod referred to education; but what was there wrong in that? Why, even in the Established Church, the noble Lord would find education spoken of as a thing belonging of right to the bishops and clergy. But, while the Catholic bishops were censured for expressing their opinions on this important subject, the utmost license was given to others. In reference to this subject, he should quote but one sentence from a Parliamentary document, which would give the House some idea of the dangers to be apprehended from the Colleges established in Ireland. One of the present professors of Cork College, Mr. Hindis, was examined, in the inquiry that was made in 1827, into the system of education at the Belfast Academy; and, in answer to questions put to him, he said, "I am master of a classical school, and Professor of Hebrew in the Belfast Academy." He was then asked, "Do yon consider Jesus Christ to be God?" "No." "In any sense of the term?" "In no sense; I believe him to be a created being, and that there was a time when he did not exist?" "What idea do you attach to the term Holy Ghost?" "I have no clear idea about it." He would allude to the case of another professor in one of the new colleges, who, in his first lecture to the students, had denounced all the French writers of the orthodox school, while he recommended the infidel and licentious authors. Not content with this, he wrote a book, in which similar objectionable opinions were advanced. His brother professors remonstrated with him; but he reminded them that they were interfering, with the liberal spirit of the Act which established the Colleges, and which required no religious test. The professors were obliged to retract their call on him, and to content themselves with the guarantee that he should not again presume to write a book and place his name on the title-page as a professor of the college; but if he omitted his name, he might write what he liked. It was a mockery to say that there was no danger in permitting such things; and these evils became palpable before the colleges had been established three months. The Catholics were, therefore, right in coming forward and denouncing these colleges. If they had not done so, they would not have done their duty to Ireland. It was a most audacious imputation to say, that, because they objected to such institutions, they were therefore cot loyal to the Queen. He would say, that was a most audacious imputation; and, so far as it was intended to cast a slur upon the Catholics, it was an unfounded and an unworthy charge. Talk of contravening the law of the land! If the law contravened natural right, and outraged the principles of civil and religious liberty, a constitutional resistance to it was a duty. But the noble Lord said, the Catholics must take his definition of the authority and rights of their Church, rather than that of their bishops. The noble Lord proceeded to say, that, unless the Catholics submitted to him, he would go on and make fresh penal measures against them. But that policy had been tried in Ireland for three centuries; and, depend upon it, the threat of its renewal would not frighten the Catholics. The words of the noble Lord would "pass by them like an idle wind which they regarded not." What said the noble Lord, in a speech delivered on the 15th February, 1844:— It is highly derogatory to the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy, that you now provide by statute against the former being called by the name of the diocese over which they preside. Such distinctions are, I think, foolish. You deny Dr. Murray the title of Archbishop of Dublin, but he is Archbishop of Dublin nevertheless. He (Mr. O'Connell) fully concurred in that opinion, and therefore be opposed the present measure. The Catholics would still continue to respect their bishops, and to obey their counsel and advice; and they would reject, repudiate, and determinedly resist every thing by which the noble Lord sought to impair their position and authority.

MR. LAWLESS

considered that every Member representing a Catholic constituency was bound to raise his voice against the present Bill, and he felt himself the more bound to do so because he was a Protestant representing a Catholic constituency. He felt doubly impelled to participate in that discussion, for he was acutely affected by the insult which was offered to his Roman Catholic electors and fellow-countrymen, and their venerated clergy, by the present system of legislation. When the noble Lord now at the bead of the Government succeeded to office, bonfires of rejoicing were lighted up throughout Ireland, because the people remembered the opinions he had expressed in Opposition, and especially his declaration that Ireland was occupied, and not governed. There were now, however, other bonfires in Ireland, and in every one of them the noble Lord was burnt in effigy. It might be said this was but a proof of the fickleness of popularity, and of the capriciousness of the people. That he denied. It was the noble Lord who had been capricious, for he had not fulfilled his promises. The noble Lord had given the Irish people Arms Acts and Coercion Acts; and he (Mr. Lawless) had the authority of Mr. Berwick, a revising barrister in the south of Ireland, for stating that the Franchise Act passed for Ireland, would, so far from operating beneficially, be a disfranchising Act with regard to a large portion of that country. Then in the terrible famine with which Ireland had been visited, and which was met by the people with a patience which did them alike credit and honour, the Government had not taken those measures which they were bound to take, and he contended that they were responsible for every life lost by that famine. And now, to crown all, the noble Lord proposed a penal law directed against the Irish Ro-roan Catholic bishops and priests, who had contributed by their exemplary exertions more than anything else to keep the country in a state of tranquillity and order, and free from the effusion of blood. Yet such was their present reward. If there was one feeling stronger than another with the Irish people, it was their attachment to their Church; and the efforts they made to pay and support their clergy during the time of the famine, were extraordinary. For at that period many of the Roman Catholic priests were almost in a state of starvation themselves. The people of Ireland would watch the course of that debate with more anxiety than they had ever watched any debate in that House for years. He felt most grateful to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon for the manner in which he had spoken of Ireland^ but he regretted that in the course of this debate the hon. Member for West Surrey had used language which—although he (Mr. Lawless) was a Protestant—had excited in his mind a feeling of horror and disgust. The Speaker had ruled that the hon. Gentleman was in order in using such language; but be (Mr. Lawless) could only say that in no other assembly in the world would any one have been allowed to use such a string of obscene words. A meeting had been held on the subject of that language at Kingstown, and resolutions had been adopted expressing surprise that no notice had been taken in that House of the disgraceful language used within it. He believed there was not a single Member of that House, whether Catholic or Protestant, who did not regard that language as most shameful; and he was sorry to see that, in the resolutions of the meeting to which he had referred, the noble Lord at the bead of the Government was coupled with the hon. Member for West Surrey. This he supposed had arisen from some mistake; for the noble Lord had never used such language as that indulged in by the hon. Member for West Surrey. Indeed, the only fault he had to find with the noble Lord was, that he had not sufficiently condemned the language of that hon. Member. The advanced age of the hon. Member probably protected him from being seriously dealt with in consequence of the language which he had used in reference to Roman Catholic ladies; but he (Mr. Lawless) would give the hon. Member one piece of advice, and that was, never to trust himself in Ireland, or else he might meet with very much the same treatment which Marshal Haynau had received in this country. He could assure the House that if there was one measure which was more calculated than another to rouse the indignant feelings of the people of Ireland, it was an insult to their clergy. There was no excuse whatever for extending this Bill to Ireland, where no aggression had been committed, and where no pretext for any such legislation existed. The way in which the noble Lord brought forward this Bill was worthy of the most pettifogging attorney. The noble Lord wrote his notorious letter, containing allusions to 'mummeries,' and other language which gave very just offence to their fellow-subjects; and then, in excuse for using such language the noble Lord said, that it was directed, not against Roman Catholics, but against Puseyites. Why, then, was Parliament called upon to legislate against Catholics, and not against Puseyites? He was glad to say that many of the Protestant clergy regretted the system of legislation now attempted against the Roman Catholics of this country. [The hon. Member then read some passages from a letter written by a Protestant clergyman to a Member of that House, expressing the opinion that it was not the province of the Queen to confer spiritual rights.] The writer observed that because the temporal barony which the Queen added to the spiritual office was the most seen and regarded, the mistake had been made of calling the names "bishop" and "archbishop" "titles," when they really were only ecclesiastical designations of persons who sustained a spiritual office in an Episcopal Church, just as the name "ministers" was the name given to persons who held a spiritual office in Methodist or Presbyterian Churches. The writer therefore inferred that there was no ground for any measure in regard to what had been improperly termed "the assumption of ecclesiastical titles." Such was the view taken by a Protestant clergyman; would "to goodness" he was a bishop! The argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, com0paring our present relations with Rome to those of Roman Catholic times in England, was absurd; in Catholic countries bishops were not appointed by the Pope without the consent of the Sovereign; but now we did not acknowledge the Pope. With regard to the public feeling upon the subject, the papers, particularly the Times, had made the most of the question, and done all they could to excite public spirit; in that day's Times there were five letters with regard to Miss Talbot's case; he regarded this as showing the sort of false impetus given to the subject, in order to back up the noble Lord in passing this measure. It was worthy of remark that though the number of petitions against the-Papal encroachments was large, the signatures did not exceed 135,615; while 572 petitions against the Bill had received 271,943 signatures. Considering the proportion of Protestants and Catholics, it could not be inferred from this there was a very strong national feeling on the subject of the aggression. It was painful to him to contrast the language used by bishops of his own Church with the temperate address of the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland to their flocks upon the subject of this measure. [The hon. Member read several extracts from this address.] Surely the proceeding now in question had arisen as much from ignorance as from wish to offend. It was not possible that the Pope, especially in his present weak state, should wish to insult and exasperate a country like this. What had occurred was very much to be attributed to the shameful state of things existing between the Pope and Her Majesty, with regard to temporal subjects. With 7,000,000 of Roman Catholics in Ireland, there should be a proper understanding with the head of their Church. This proceeding could not have arisen if there had been a concordat with Rome. But what had we? Why, a titled spy; for the noble Lord who went to Rome was without any proper credentials, and was desired to make out the most he could of matters at Rome. Then followed a misunderstanding as to what passed with the Pope; and some stated that what then passed in regard to this measure had very much encouraged the Pope in this "aggression." With regard to the scandal which had occurred in Ireland, in respect to "the Godless Colleges," as they were called, he begged to say that he did his best to further the national system there; and his father before him endowed four or five of the national schools; he was very sorry that from some misunderstanding be- tween the Government and the heads of the Catholic Church—it could be nothing more—these colleges were not likely at present to be of the use he had hoped they would be. It was his belief that the Bill went further than the noble Lord wished or intended, though, Heaven knew, he intended bad enough to the Catholics. With respect to the course taken on the part of the Government, he could not believe the noble Lord meant what he wrote in his letter; he had too high a respect for him—for his intellect. The noble Lord took advantage of a cry, thinking he could I strengthen himself in a position in which he felt he was far from secure. Not having gone far enough to please the "Protestant ascendancy boys," and having deserted the real "religious liberty men," and those who were for total freedom of conscience, he would find that "between the two stools he would fall to the ground." and would probably be overwhelmed in the ruins of his own agitation.

MR. MUNTZ

thought it a thousand I pities that the Government connived at, or, at all events, did not protest against the occupation of Rome by French troops; I because, if they had done that, the Pope would have had other duties to attend to than to make aggressions of this kind, by appointing cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, and thereby injuring and disturbing all society in this country. He would not support this Bill as being a mere question between Catholics and Protestants. He had a right to his own religion, and the Catholic had the same right to his; and if the Catholic chose to treat his religion as ridiculous, he could return the compliment and call his ridiculous. The fact was it came to the old story, that orthodoxy was every man's own doxy; and other men's doxies were heterodoxy. But the real question before the House was—has the Pope committed an aggression against the Sovereign, and also against the people of this country? One extraordinary fact manifested in that discussion was, that almost every hon. Member, without an exception, who opposed the Bill of the noble Lord, had admitted that an impudent, an arrogant, and an insolent aggression had been committed. All had made that admission but those who were under the influence of the Pope; and they could not expect that Catholic Members, under such influence, would regard that as an aggression which they thought was for their own good, and which was done by order of their own master. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, more especially, in his very clever and able speech, had not only acknowledged that a very grave and very offensive aggression had been committed, but he said it was a designed aggression. Well, then, if it was a designed and an arrogant aggression, on what ground was it that Protestant England should sit down quietly under it, and take no step to resist it? Were we in such a miserable state that we must suffer an aggression from anybody, and not attempt in any way to meet it? He had assented to the introduction of this Bill, because he believed there never was a country whore the Catholic religion had had the full ascendancy, without being inconsistent with civil and religious liberty. He had then asked hon. Members to correct him, if he were wrong; but in vain had he listened attentively to the whole of that debate, and he could not discover any instance to have been cited to contradict that opinion. Perhaps somebody who would follow him, however, would be able to explain his error, and to explain it satisfactorily; and if that could be done, he hoped that they would show him where liberty and prosperity had been maintained under the supremacy of the Roman Catholic religion. The great question before the country was, not whether the Catholic or the Protestant religion was the best, but whether a practical question for the welfare and prosperity of the country was to be considered or not. He had also in the former debate reserved a right now to deal with the measure before the House as he thought proper; but he must say, that all he had heard and read upon the subject since, had convinced him of the absolute necessity of legislation upon the subject. He had not the slightest desire to persecute or injure any man in any situation because of a difference in religious opinion; but he would say frankly to his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, that he would not encourage a religion that he considered was not useful to the country. He could not acknowledge that it was necessary to the free exercise of the Catholic religion to have territorial bishops; and there were many true Catholics who considered that everything that was necessary for their religious wants was provided by having vicars-apostolic. Besides, in Denmark, Sweden, and Saxony, there were no Catholic bishops, though there were Catholics. Therefore, he would not consent to a measure which he believed would lead to unpleasantness with regard to all other sects, and with regard also to the Government themselves. There was not a single instance, with one small exception, the canton of Fribourg, in Switzerland, where bishops were allowed to be appointed throughout the nations of Europe without the consent of the Sovereign; and why Protestant England should be asked to do what no other nation of Europe, Catholic or Protestant, would do, he confessed himself utterly unable to understand. The Austrian Government was the only instance where the power over such appointments had been given up very lately; but then the Austrian Government wished to get the Pope to assist it in keeping the people in subjection; and if we wished to get rid of a constitutional government, we could not do better than allow the Pope's power to go unchecked. Where, he asked, was there a constitutional country where the Roman Catholic religion had its fullest development? [An Hon, Member: Belgium.] Belgium! why, how long had Belgium existed? it was hardly born yet, and it might before long be absorbed by the different powerful nations that surrounded it; for it existed as a nation only by the forbearance of the nations surrounding it, and therefore could never be cited as ail instance to the contrary. Then why he should support this Bill was, because Roman Catholic dominancy had a tendency to subvert constitutional governments in Europe. But, "Oh," it was said by several hon. Members, "the poor Pope was only kept in Rome by French bayonets!" Well, but that was the very reason he (Mr. Muntz) feared him, for he was not his own master, and was probably acting under the influence of the French; besides, how did we know that this measure was not connected with Austria and Russia? for there could be no doubt the Pope was the greatest card that these Powers could use against the constitutional nations of Europe. It was remarkable how differently the same things impressed different minds: much fault had been found with the speech of the hon. Baronet of Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) in favour of the Bill, which, if it had no other merit, was at least an independent speech; but if he (Mr. Muntz) had not previously determined upon supporting the measure now before the House, that speech would have determined him to do so. It was really an English speech, which came from the heart; there was no Jesuitry in it, and in his opinion it was honourable to the hon. Baronet, to that House, and to the country; besides, it agreed with all previous accounts which he (Mr. Muntz) had received respecting Italy and Switzerland. With reference to the Swiss question, he (Mr. Muntz) had a knowledge, from his communication with that country, of circumstances respecting that question, which appeared to be very little known. There was only one instance in Europe where the Pope was allowed to appoint bishops free from all control by the Government, and that was in the canton of Fribonrg. And it was rather extraordinary that, in 1849, after the war of the Sonderbund was at an end, the bishop there, appointed by the Pope, and subject to no control by the State, in consequence of the Government being too liberal for his views, encouraged the people to march against the Government, and personally excited them to march against it, and supported them in doing it with money out of his own pocket. The bishop was subsequently arrested for the offence, and was sent across the frontier, and he went to Rome, where he was received as a martyr to the Church for his conduct in Fribourg, and there he still remained. Well, but hon. Gentlemen talked about bishops being only spiritual. Did they call this one only a spiritual bishop? He should call him extremely temporal. He could give the name of the gentleman who stood by and saw the transaction in which the Bishop of Fribourg was concerned, if the House required it; and he was one of high standing and respectability. It had been said that this was a question of civil and religious liberty. No man respected civil and religious liberty more highly than himself, but he did not consider that it was a question of civil and religious liberty. He considered it a question of whether this country had undergone a great and insolent aggression, and whether it was the foundation of an audacious and premeditated attack on the Protestants of Europe through this country. Look what a feather in the cap of the Pope it would be to be able to say, in the midst of all his weakness, "Here is the end of it. With all their boasting of independence and power, see how I subject them. See how I have swamped these proud Protestant English. Have not I divided their country, appointed bishops, and even stated that I superseded their very Church?" Though he would not persecute in any way the Catholic re- ligion, either in England or Ireland, he would do the best he could to protect the Protestant religion, believing it to be essential to the best interests of the country. Although a few short years would put an end to any part he could take in the question, and to all interest that be now had in it, still he would never have it said to his children that he had gone out of his way to encourage the spread of a religion which, in his opinion, could not contribute to the welfare, or prosperity, or liberty of the country.

MR. SCULLY

thought the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham was fitted for such times as those that had preceded the passing of the Emancipation Act, attacking as it did the Roman Catholics both in that House and out of it, as well as the Supreme Pontiff, whom they were bound, as their spiritual head, to love, honour, and respect. The hon. Member had said that they had all acknowledged that there had been an act of aggression on the part of the Pope; but surely, if he had paid attention to hon. Gentlemen, professing another creed from the Roman Catholic, who had spoken during these debates, he ought to have had grounds for forming a very different I opinion on that point from that at which he appeared to have arrived. How the so-called aggression affected the pockets or persons of any one in this country he could not understand. The Roman rescript only gave to England what had existed in Ireland for fourteen centuries. Besides, there was just as much aggression in appointing vicars-apostolic as in appointing those bishops, as had been shown by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. The number of Roman Catholics having increased from 67,000 in 1760, to upwards of 1,000,000 now, their chapels exceeding 800, and colleges, monasteries, and other institutions having sprung up, were good reasons why a change should be made in the mode of governing the Roman Catholic Church in this country, from vicars-apostolic to bishops in ordinary. What had been done could not be undone. The total withdrawal of a bull or rescript was very rare; and there I was no reason for the withdrawal of the rescript establishing a hierarchy, the establishment of which, for the above reasons, he thought fit and proper. As a friend of religious liberty, he opposed this Bill. Let it be passed, and he felt that a Roman Catholic in the united kingdom would stand in a very different position from his fellow-religionist in any other part of the British empire, even in the wilds of Australia, or the back settlements of Canada, where the Roman Catholic hierarchy was fully and legally recognised. If the prerogatives of the Crown had been invaded here, it might be asked whether these prerogatives did not extend to the colonies? And, if the State paid the Roman Catholic bishops in the colonies, why not allow them to exist here on the voluntary system? The results of the present proceeding would be of a melancholy and serious character as regarded Ireland, where the Roman Catholic hierarchy was recognised by law and custom, by courts, in Acts of Parliament, and even in the proceedings of the House of Commons. It was said that the 24th section of the Act of 1829 made the assumption of territorial titles by the Roman Catholic bishops illegal; but he contended that that Act had been repealed in substance, if not in terms. In the Irish Poor Law it was enacted, that previous to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains to the workhouses, they should be first recommended and sanctioned by the bishops. If this Bill was passed, it would be an infringement of the poor-law, for as the Roman Catholic bishops could not be acknowledged, there could be no chaplains, and the inmates of workhouses would be deprived of religious consolation; would not this amount to a repeal of the Emancipation Act, which guaranteed to the people the free exercise of their religion? Those prelates were also directly acknowledged in the Charitable Bequests Act, and in the proceedings of that House, as would be seen by a reference to the Report of the Committee in 1825, on Roman Catholic Disabilities, so often quoted in that debate, in which the prelates examined were called "the Most Rev. the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin," "the Right Rev. the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kildare," and so on. He also opposed this legislation as a solemn mockery, when he reflected that it was based upon such a plea as that of being neeessary for the maintenance of civil and religious liberty. So far from its being consistent with religious liberty, it was, as Dr. Murray had said, "the last drop in the cup of their spiritual bondage;" and that although the Bill was "ostensibly levelled at the bishops, it was, in reality, levelled against the Roman Catholic religion." Dr. Ryan, Roman Catholic bishop of Limerick, also, had expressed the universal feeling of detestation with which this Bill was regarded in Ireland, when he lately stated at a public meeting that if the Government wanted to ruin the country they could not have adopted a measure more certain to produce that effect. These were the opinions not of persons who were accustomed to take part in politics, but of men of retired habits, who interfered little in the public questions of the day. It was said that public opinion pressed for legislation on this subject. He believed that there was a certain party in the country anxious for legislation; but their principal object was to cover up and conceal, by this means, the dissensions that prevailed in the Church of England itself. He warned the House against being led away by a cry of "The Church in danger!"—a cry which, as the great Grattan observed, had always been mischievous to the country; and he trusted the House would consider seriously the consequences likely to follow from their yielding to a cry so fallacious and foolish at the present day. Strong charges had been made against Roman Catholics holding only a divided allegiance; but he maintained that the Roman Catholics of this country held as undivided an allegiance to the Crown as the most loyal of their Protestant fellow-countrymen could possibly do. At the passing of the Emancipation Act in 1829 an illustrious Royal Duke in another place gave full testimony to this undivided allegiance on the part of Roman Catholics. The same loyalty actuated them now as then, and he hoped no further attempts would be made in the course of the debate to impugn the conduct and character of Roman Catholics upon that head. The attack upon the "allegiance" of Roman Catholics was perfectly absurd. The same illustrious Duke had defined allegiance to be "a civil obedience to the Sovereign;" and what, therefore, had their spiritual obedience to the Pope to do with their allegiance? If proof were necessary to satisfy the House as to the loyalty of that portion of their fellow-subjects, he might refer to the evidence given before the Committee of 1825 by the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, in which he explicitly stated that the authority of the Pope was confined altogether to spiritual matters—that Catholics obeyed him in spiritual matters only—and that in civil matters their allegiance to the Crown was complete and undivided. It was said that the late Papal act was an innovation on the Protestant institutions of the country; but he must remind the House that their greatest and most free institutions were derived from Roman Catholics themselves long before the Reformation took place, and that they could have no desire now to infringe in the least degree on those institutions. None of the great statesmen of the present day, except those connected with the Government, supported legislation on this question. A noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) in another place observed, with reference to this subject, that "conscience and opinion were beyond the sphere of legislation;" and he also told them, that seeing the Roman Catholic Church was tolerated in this country, it followed that they should have liberty to carry out the organisation of their Church in a regular manner. These sentiments were, he was happy to say, participated in by nearly all the statesmen of the day not connected with Government. The House should not forget that they were attempting to legislate in a persecuting spirit for millions of Roman Catholics in this country, and that by passing this measure they would cast an insult on those millions. They should also bear in mind the thousands of Roman Catholic foreigners who would visit the festival of peace in Hyde Park: what would they think of such an insult being offered to their religion, at the moment they were invited to the shores of England? In what state would they see Ireland? If the Government had turned its attention to subjects connected with the development of the national resources, rather than to the indulgence of religious bigotry, that country would have presented a far more noble spectacle. If this Bill were withdrawn, and the Government were to devote itself to the consideration of the great and comprehensive measures for the amelioration of Ireland, which that unfortunate country so much required, in place of being a drag-chain and disgrace, it would soon become the strength and glory of England.

MR. HUME

said, that as the hon. Member for Birmingham had ventured on the rash assertion, that nobody except some person who was under the direct control of the Pope would be found to express an opinion against this unfortunate Bill, he, whom no one would suspect of being under the influence of the Holy See, would, with the permission of the House, take leave to place on record his emphatic and unqualified denunciation of the measure. He was perfectly free from the influence of the Court of Rome. He was a Protestant and an Englishman, and in each of these characters he protested with equal vehemence against the Bill. Most of those who spoke during the present debate took either a religious or a political view of the question. But in whichever aspect it was viewed, he regarded it as the most unfortunate occurrence that had taken place during the long period of his Parliamentary life. The speeches which had been delivered during this debate were precisely similar in tone and spirit to those which were delivered twenty or twenty-five years ago in that House, when the great question was, whether the Catholics should be restored to liberty or retained in an ignoble bondage. From his heart he deplored this ill-judged and ill-timed measure; for he regarded it as the first retrocession from a long series of Acts passed by that House of late years, which had been all founded on the liberal and sagacious policy of removing that which was onerous and grievous from our Catholic fellow-subjects, and of placing Ireland in a position in which, instead of being the shame and weakness of England, might enable her to become her glory and her strength, For centuries Ireland had been a stumbling-block and impediment in the way of England; and as he had always been of opinion that that deplorable fact was to be attributed to the existence in Ireland of penal enactments which humiliated and debased the people, it had been with the deepest satisfaction that for years he had witnessed the gradual abolition of those enactments, unwise as they were cruel. The hon. Member for Lincoln, in the able and convincing speech which he delivered that night, had dispersed many of the delusions—for they were no better than delusions—which prevailed in reference to this question. He reminded the House of the efforts which had been made by Mr. Pitt to win over the people of Ireland, and to put an end to the vile; contest between Protestant and Catholic. The hon. Gentleman called attention to J the questions which had been put by Mr. Pitt to the most able and learned men on this subject; and the answers returned were, he thought, a complete reply to all the violent speeches which had been delivered out of the House, and to most of those which had been made within it, on this question. It was, in his mind, most humiliating to listen to such violent and indecorous speeches, and to see the time of the English House of Commons occupied as it had been, to the neglect of most im- portant questions, with a matter of this kind in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was degrading to think that they were at the present period of the world ripping up mediaeval acts, as if they were applicable to our own times. It would be just as appropriate, in his mind, to discuss the probability of a return to the period when judges of this country sentenced witches to be burned, amid the savage acclamations of the people. Why, the Catholics were as much improved in respect to former practices as the Protestants, and it was a childish fear to suppose that the acts of former times would be committed again. Yet it was for a discussion of this kind that the important business of Parliament was stopped, and he saw no termination to future discussions of a similar kind. The real question they had to deal with was how they were best able to govern the united kingdom, and in coming to a sound conclusion on that matter, they could never leave out of sight that a large proportion of the united kingdom differed from him in religious opinion. It would be arrogant in him to say that he was right, and that they were wrong; but whether they were right or wrong, the policy and the law of the country placed them on a footing of perfect equality with the other portion of the united kingdom, and it was from that point of view that it behoved them to look at this question. He denied that the Roman Catholics were merely tolerated: they enjoyed equal rights with the other portions of Her Majesty's subjects, and they were at full liberty to practise and carry out the principles of their religion. As a Protestant, he protested against this Bill, and maintained that it was inconsistent with the Protestant principle of the right of private judgment to act in any other spirit towards the Roman Catholics. Indeed, it would be tyranny to do so. They claimed the right of private judgment for themselves, and yet they arrogantly denied it to their Catholic countrymen. In so acting, they were stultifying themselves, and acting in opposition to that liberal and enlightened policy which for the last thirty years had dictated the legislation of that House. If anything could add to the feelings of pain with which he witnessed such proceedings on the part of the British Legislature, it was to see that the chief actor in such a movement was the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whom, for thirty years, he (Mr. Hume) had followed as the champion of civil and religious liberty, and who had associated his own name with so many noble efforts in behalf of the cause of liberty, both civil and religious. When first he read the too notorious letter of the noble Lord to the Bishop of Durham, he could not bring himself to believe that it faithfully represented his true feelings and opinions; and he (Mr. Hume) said as much in a letter which he wrote a short time afterwards to a friend. He told his friend that he could not understand how such a letter could have been seriously written by the noble Lord, who had been mainly instrumental in procuring the Test and Corporation Acts—in affording relief to the Burghers of Scotland, in unshackling the Unitarians, and in procuring the enactment of the Catholic Emancipation Bill in 1829. He grieved to find that he had formed too high an opinion of the public virtue and political consistency of the noble Lord. The only point on which he (Mr. Hume) differed from the eloquent, brilliant, and powerful speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, was in not thinking the act of the Pope as arrogant and offensive, or that any aggression whatever on the supremacy of the Queen or on the independence of the nation had been attempted by the Pope. If the right hon. Baronet had said that the matter had been introduced in an ungracious manner, he (Mr. Hume) would go with the right hon. Baronet. But it now appeared that the letter or rescript was not intended to be published; and this, in his opinion, cut away nine-tenths of the ground from those who argued that this was an aggression. No speaker, in fact, had yet demonstrated in what the so-called aggression consisted. The law admitted of vicars-apostolic to regulate the affairs of the Catholics of this country. The vicars-apostolic were bound to obey the orders of the Pope with regard to the wishes of the Catholics residing in their respective districts. The Catholics of England desired to have territorial bishops, in order that their own wants and wishes might be taken into consideration by their spiritual governors, instead of those governors being completely at the mercy and under the dictation of the Court of Rome. They accordingly petitioned for, and ultimately obtained, territorial bishops, and this they did without attempting to meddle with the affairs of any other class of religionists whatsoever. He had seen the petition which had been sent to Rome in 1838, asking for the change. The peti- tion was not attended to at the time, but the application was renewed in 1848, and it was known to every one that bishops were then appointed. Where, then, was the novelty or the surprise in what had taken place? And yet this was called an aggression. The Catholics believed that territorial bishops were essential to their full spiritual liberty, and the real aggressors were those who denied to them aright to which, by every consideration of justice and integrity, they were obviously entitled. Catholic bishops, with territorial designations, were permitted without challenge in Ireland and the Colonies, and why should they not be permitted in England? It was monstrous to think that grown-up men should be so lost to common sense as to worry themselves and torture the country by discussions upon such a question. It might be all very well for children, but for persons who had arrived at the years of reason it was really too ridiculous. The application of the measure to any portion of the United Kingdom would be absurd; but its application to Scotland, where the spiritual supremacy had never been admitted, would he especially preposterous. There was the Free Kirk of Scotland—now more numerous than the Established Kirk of Scotland—which had its general assemblies, its synods, its presbyteries, and its parishes of the same extent as the Established Church of Scotland, and yet no complaint was ever made on the subject. Why then complain that the limits of the Roman Catholic districts were the same as those of the Established Church in England? He regarded the Bill as one of pains and penalties—as the commencement of a system which would not be limited to the Roman Catholics. The Dissenters would come in for their share, if power was given to any one class to put down another. It was with grief and indignation that he saw the Dissenters, who could perform their religious services without impediment, now join in the cry which had been raised against Roman Catholics. They ought to consider that no portion of Her Majesty's subjects had supported the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts with more readiness than Roman Catholics. What a sad return did they make, when, having obtained their own liberty, they now sought to place trammels on those who had helped them to achieve it. He could have wished that the House had been informed from what section of the Wesleyans the forty-nine petitions which had been that day presented against the Catholics had emanated. He should not be in the least surprised to hear that they were the same section who had resisted Wesleyan reform, and who, assuming to themselves the authority of Popes, were anxious to keep their brother Wesleyans in bondage. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz.) had asked why they did not by some arrangement come to an understanding with the Pope that bishops should not be appointed here, any more than in other countries, without the consent of the Sovereign. He would be happy to see a concordat to that effect established to-morrow. He did not believe it would be objected to by Roman Catholics, and he thought that by that means would be obtained all that was wanted. With respect to the measure generally, he would take leave to observe that one of his principal reasons for opposing it was, that it would create the deepest dissatisfaction and the deadliest animosity as between class and class in Ireland. What was the reason that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor, who was also the Attorney General for Ireland, had not risen in his place before now, and explained the probable operation of the Bill in that country? It was the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to explain the provisions of this Bill as they would affect that country, of which he was the first law officer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was sitting below him, and he (Mr. Hume) wanted to know why he had not taken part in this debate, and why he had not officially explained to the House his views upon this question. He believed it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to address the House on this question, and to relieve their anxiety with respect to the probable operation of the Bill in Ireland. It was to be hoped it would be so. For his own part, he (Mr. Hume) was persuaded that the Bill would be as distasteful to the people of Ireland in one clause as in four, and he should vote against it as a measure of persecution unworthy of the country and of the Legislature.

MR. MUNTZ

explained that what he had intended to convey in the course of his speech was the opinion that the Pope had no right to do in this Protestant country what he had not been permitted to do in any other country, Catholic or Protestant.

MR. HUME

He did no more than has in effect been done by other sects.

SIR F. THESIGER

believed it to be the general desire—he wished he could say it was the general expectation—of the House, that they should come to a division to-night. He felt that he was about to speak upon an exhausted subject, and to a wearied audience; and he certainly would not have ventured to present himself under these disadvantages, but I that he most earnestly desired to have an opportunity of explaining his views of the measure now before them, in order that the course he had determined to pursue should not be mistaken. This was not a discussion into which one would willingly enter, for it was impossible to express an opinion freely upon it without giving offence to the religious feeling of a large portion of their fellow-subjects, whatever inclination or endeavour there might be to avoid it. He trusted nobody would think for a moment that he was capable of wounding the feelings—particularly the religious feelings—of any one; but it was impossible to do justice to the subject without touching on topics that necessarily and unhappily would produce that effect. On the one hand, the Protestants believed there had been an unjustifiable aggression committed against them; the Roman Catholics, on the other hand, felt that the course which was adopted for repressing that aggression involved in it an invasion of their civil and religious liberties. It was out of the collision of those opposite opinions that the result of their deliberations was to be elicited. Now, he had been most anxious during the whole of this debate to hear a satisfactory explanation given of the mode in which the Bill now under consideration would carry out the proposed object of the noble Lord. He had heard aggression denounced in strong and emphatic language by all who considered that legislation was necessary; he had heard the insolent and haughty tone of the Papal briefs spoken of, even by those who opposed the present legislation; but he had not heard one satisfactory explanation of the mode in which the measure of the noble Lord would either repress the present aggression, or would raise any barrier to prevent aggression in future. They had been told that it was a wise and politic maxim not to legislate beyond the necessity. He agreed in that point; but the question in every case must be, what is the necessity? If there be a mischief and inconvenience, arising from the present state of the law, the obvious remedy was to change the law, and to repress the evil; but sup- pose the object was to prevent the assault and aggression of an adversary, they must not be contented merely with warding off the blow that had been aimed at them, but sound policy required they should, if possible, disable him from further mischief. The question they had to consider was, what ought to be the object of their legislation; and in order to arrive at a conclusion on the subject, it was necessary to consider what had led to the aggression of which they complained. He did not believe it would be found during the whole course of this debate that any Roman Catholic Member had explained that there was any religious necessity for the important change which was made by means of the Papal brief. It had been said by an hon. Member who recently spoke, that a full explanation had been given in what he must call the not very reasonable, nor very calm and temperate appeal of the new Cardinal to the reason and good feeling of the English people. Now there, if anywhere, he apprehended, they should have found an explanation of the alleged necessity. If there had been any spiritual want for it by the Roman Catholic people—if that were the reason and motive of the Papal brief, so able a reasoner would not have lost sight of the importance of such an argument in favour of the act of the Pope, and he would have put it forth most undoubtedly in that address. Now, what was it that Cardinal Wiseman alleged was the object of it? He said the object was to introduce the "real and complete code of the Church," that for that purpose the Roman Catholics must have a hierarchy, because the canon law was inapplicable under vicars-apostolic, and besides there were many points that would have to be synodically adjusted, and without a metropolitan and suffragans there could not be provincial synods. There might have been other motives. He (Sir F. Thesiger) found on the very face of this address a curious illustration of the mode in which the Papal power seemed to be ever on the watch to take advantage of each unguarded opportunity. They found it was with almost artless candour stated that when James the Second ascended the Throne, there seemed to be a prospect of happier times for the Catholic religion, and Pope Innocent the Eleventh immediately availed himself of that opportunity; and was there nothing in the circumstances of the present time which might have induced the Pope to believe that the period had arrived when he might successfully advance his power and authority in this country? They knew there had been most deplorable defections from the Established Church; that many persons who still continued within her bosom, had embraced some of the most characteristic doctrines of the Church of Rome; and that some conscientious, but, as he thought, ill-judging men, were desirous to revive in our simple service the ceremonials and forms which had become obsolete in the Protestant Church, because they did not tend to edification; and to restore all the gorgeous ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church. There had been also language used by different statesmen which might have conveyed to the mind of the Pope an idea that any interference by means of instituting a new order of bishops in this country would not be resented; and he (Sir F. Thesiger) believed, above all, that there were misapprehensions entertained with regard to the extent and depth of the Protestant feeling which ran with such strong current through the life-blood of England. He was bound, therefore, as he found no other reason than that which he collected from the different assertions and arguments that had been used, and having no means of judging of them except by their actions, to think it was not from any religious necessity that this most extraordinary step was taken by the Papal See; and therefore he thought that, so far at least as England was concerned, they were called upon to resist the aggression—to oppose it to the uttermost of their power—and by means of legislation to prevent the intrusion of any foreign authority upon us in the manner proposed. But it was said, if all this be true, confine your legislation to England, to which part of the kingdom the Papal brief alone applies. Ireland had for a long series of years possessed her Roman Catholic bishops with the titles of Irish sees; the use of these titles had been sanctioned; and it might be said we had no right now, as our connivance might be almost considered to have justified the course that had been pursued, to extend this legislation, even if necessary for England, to the sister country. There had been a great misapprehension as to the real state of the law in Ireland with respect to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. His right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) in the course of the remarkable speech he had made to the House, stated that in the year 1792 an Irish Act had been passed for banishing all the archbishops and bishops of Ireland; but he said so strong was the feeling in favour of complete religious toleration, that in the very next year—the year 1793—the Act was repealed. He (Sir F. Thesiger) was astonished when he read (for he had not heard) the assertion which had been made by his right hon. Friend, and he had thought it right to apply to him to know on what authority it was that he had made the assertion; and his right hon. Friend told him that the Duke of Wellington, in a debate, a passage from which he showed him, had made this assertion, and had made it in the presence of Lord Lynd-hurst, Lord Eldon, and Lord Tenterden, and, therefore, without further inquiry, he thought he was entitled to consider the statement correct. Now it happened there was no such Act of 1792, and therefore there was no Act of 1793 repealing that Act. There was undoubtedly, in the reign of William III., an Act of Parliament passed for banishing, not all Popish ecclesiastics, as they were called in the Act, but all the higher orders of the Roman Catholic clergy, specifying them as archbishops, bishops, vicars-general, and deans, and all the regular clergy; and that Act having been continued by several intermediate Acts, was made perpetual by an Act of the 8th Queen Anne. Now that Act of William was not repealed entirely, but only to this extent, in the year 1782: An Act was then passed for enabling Roman Catholic ecclesiastics to register themselves, upon making a certain declaration and taking certain oaths; but there was a most extraordinary exception in that Act of Parliament: in the 8th section, it was enacted that no person should be entitled to the benefit of that Act (which was exemption to the person that registered and took the oaths from the penalties provided by the Act of William III.) who assumed or took any ecclesiastical rank or title whatever. That was a statute confined entirely to Ireland, The Act which his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon stated as passed in 1793, was an Act undoubtedly for the relief of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland; but that Act of 1793 had no operation whatever upon the status of ecclesiastics who assumed any rank or title; they remained precisely in the same state as they were left by the Act of 1782; and if hon. Gentlemen would turn to the Act of 1795, which was the one by which the College of Maynooth was afterwards founded and endowed, they would find that the Roman Catholic hierarchy—the Roman Catholic prelates—were named in that Act after all the laity, not by their titles of bishops, but as doctors of divinity. So that the House would observe that down at least to the year 1795, whatever might have been the facts, the practice of assuming ecclesiastical titles was one that was entirely contrary to law. It had been said that the Pope had created bishops with titular sees in Ireland from the time the Reformed Church was Completely established in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He knew that Pope Pius the Fifth, the Pope who excommunicated Elizabeth, had appointed an Archbishop of Armagh, but he believed after that time it was not uniformly the case for the Pope to appoint bishops to sees in Ireland, but that he appointed them as in England—bishops in partibus. Undoubtedly in recent times there was a change; when it took place he was unable to discover; but it was immaterial, inasmuch as the reason that had been assigned for making a distinction between England and Ireland did not exist; but on the contrary, the Acts against the assumption in Ireland of ecclesiastical rank and titles were stronger than any that had been passed in England. It had been said that because by the Act of 1829 a penalty was imposed on persons taking the titles of particular sees, therefore there was a virtual repeal as to all other titles of all the Acts of Parliament passed on this subject previous to that time. But every lawyer knew that one affirmative Act did not repeal another affirmative Act, except the Acts were inconsistent with each other; therefore he apprehended that down to the year 1829 the law continued in the same state, and the prohibition against assuming any ecclesiastical rank or title continued as it was before. It would seem that there was some fatality connected with everything in which Ireland was implicated, for even the most recent Acts of Parliament were either overlooked or misconstrued by the highest authorities. The Charitable Bequests Act, passed in 1844, and in the year 1847 Lord Grey, as Colonial Secretary, wrote a circular to the Governors of the British Colonies, in which he said, "as Parliament, by a recent Act regulating Charitable Bequests, has formally recognised the rank of Roman Catholic prelates, by giving them precedence after the prelates of the Established Church of the same degree, it appears to Her Majesty's Government that it is their duty to conform to the rule thus laid down by the Legislature." The House, he (Sir F. Thesiger) had no doubt, was by that time perfectly familiar with the Charitable Bequests Act, and they must be aware that the Legislature had laid down no regulation at all with respect to the rank of Roman Catholic pralates in that Act; and, therefore, the noble Lord acted under a great mistake in exercising an authority of a very important description by giving the rank to the Roman Catholic bishops in the Colonies, which he thought corresponded with that which the Legislature had recognised. True it was that under that Act a Royal Commission had been issued, giving to the Roman Catholic prelates certain rank corresponding to their style and title; but though it was perfectly true that the Queen could give any rank or precedence to any of Her subjects that She pleased, the rank given to the Roman Catholic prelates under that Commission applied solely to that Commission, and did not extend beyond it. They would not have a right to carry it out in other matters, or any other occasion; and, therefore, it appeared to him that the Bishop of Sydney was justified in the opinion he expressed, in the paper that had been recently laid before the House, that, under these circumstances, the mere fiat of the Colonial Secretary, without the sanction of the Sovereign, was not sufficient to confer this rank on the colonial Roman Catholic bishops. Thus, then, stood the question with regard to the assumption of titles in Ireland; and he apprehended there was nothing in the historical details which could justify any one in saying that the position of Ireland was distinct from that of England. The blow aimed at the Queen's sovereignty in England was a warning to them to defend their Sovereign from a similar blow in other parts of Her dominions, and to extend their legislation so far as to protect Her sovereignty in every part of Her dominions. Was there anything which had occurred that rendered this legislation necessary? The Pope knew perfectly well that the great difficulty of the noble Lord—as it had been the great difficulty of every English Government—was the kingdom of Ireland. He knew perfectly well that there might be danger to the noble Lord if he I extended that legislation to the sister country; and what did he do, in the very midst of the popular ferment? He created a Bishop of Ross; he threw down the gauntlet of defiance, and compelled the noble Lord either to abandon that which was his duty, or to involve himself in all the difficulties that had actually occurred to him, by determining firmly and boldly, and as he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought justly, to extend the measure to Ireland.

So, then, stood the question with regard to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles; and, now, what was the law with respect to the introduction of hulls? Down to the year 1829, and after that period, they had in their perfect integrity and force certain well-known and familiar Acts of Parliament to prevent the introduction of bulls into this country, one of them being as old as the reign of Richard the Second, generally called the Statute of Præmunire; and there were also the two statutes of Elizabeth, to which reference was frequently made. Now when the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act was passed, these statutes existed in all their force, armed with all their terrors, and sufficiently protected this kingdom from the intrusion of any Papal bull, brief, or any other document of similar character, and therefore not rendering necessary any Royal exequatur, of which they had heard so much, and which perhaps Were not adapted to the position of a Protestant country. But, after the year 1829, we began a system, he was almost afraid he must say, of inconsiderate kindness and indulgence; we, one by one, removed from the Statute-book the different securities that had existed against Papal encroachment—we broke down the battlements of our fortress—we almost dismantled our citadel—we afforded every opportunity to any person disposed to take advantage of our disabled condition, to march in and take possession. Yet, in the disabled circumstances in which we had placed ourselves, the noble Lord apprehended no such encroachment or aggression as that which had taken place. The words of the noble Lord at the head of the Government on the subject were remarkable. He said, in the month of August 1846— Let us suppose that there is some bull introduced into this country similar to those we heard of in former days—let us suppose, and it would be almost extravagant to suppose it, that there was any attempt of the Pope to assert any sovereign authority in this realm, or interfere with the Queen's authority—my belief is, that no such bull would be observed by any Roman Catholic, but that it would be a dead letter. I am sure that if any person acted contrary to his alle- giance in consequence of such a bull, he would be punishable according to the law of the land."—[3 Hansard, lxxxviii., 362.] Now, a brief, which was equivalent to a bull, had been introduced, and the noble Lord himself had characterised that document; and he thought it might be as well to put the noble Lord's celebrated letter in juxtaposition with his celebrated speech, and to show how completely he had been deceived and misled by placing confidence in the forbearance of the Papal See, and how little he was prepared for this attempt. In his letter he said— There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Home—a pretension to sovereignty over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway, which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation, even as asserted in Roman Catholic times. This brief, unexpectedly, and to the astonishment of the noble Lord, made its appearance upon their shores—there was a strong popular ferment throughout the country—the noble Lord saw the rising storm—he watched its progress—and at last, after some little deliberation, he turned his face in the direction to catch the popular gale, and issued the letter from which he (Sir F. Thesiger) had read a passage to the House. The noble Lord, in that letter, stated that the law should be very carefully examined, in order that it might be brought into operation against the persons who had offended against it. The people exulted in having such a champion of their rights as the noble Lord, and such a defender of their faith, and they reposed with the most perfect security on the promise which the noble Lord had given. The law, it was admitted, was sufficient for the purpose of punishing this aggression: that had been admitted in the course of the debate, both by the noble Lord himself and other Members, who spoke on this question. Why, then, was not the law carried into effect? The noble Lord said, it was considered not to he expedient to carry out that law, for it had in a degree become obsolete; and it might be regarded as a harsh proceeding if old Acts of Parliament, that had been buried a long time, and were almost dead in our Statute-book, were revived and carried into operation under the circumstances that had occurred. He (Sir F. Thesiger) would venture to say that, inasmuch as those Acts of Parliament (those particularly passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) had been the subject of their consideration in 1844 and in 1846, and although in those years they had removed specific penalties which those Acts contained, yet they had repeated the prohibitions—they gave to them a modern dress—they made them speak a modern language—they were not exactly modern statutes, and that it would not have been hard to apply them to meet this aggression. But what had the noble Lord done? He left the law still in the same unsatisfactory state. Were those Acts to be applicable to future aggression, or were they to be considered obsolete? The noble Lord had really done more injury to the law as it existed in the Statute-book, and to the common law, by the mode in which he had dealt with this subject, than any course that could possibly be imagined.

The noble Lord then considered it was not proper to carry out those laws against this aggression. Now, let the House see what was the nature of that aggression, and having ascertained that, let them see what was the measure of the noble Lord to protect us from that aggression, and to satisfy the wishes and desires of the people. Every Member who had spoken on the Protestant side of the question had admitted the haughty and imperious tone of the Papal bull. It had been proved, he thought, most satisfactorily that the Papal power being a compound of temporal and spiritual authority, so closely connected and intimately blended that it was almost impossible to detach and separate the one from the other—whether this was to be regarded as a spiritual or temporal act, or an I ecclesiastical act, which was an act of a; mixed nature, there could be no doubt that the tone which had been adopted by the I Pope, indicated at least the intention to extend sovereign power and authority over "the kingdom of England;" and I that very expression "kingdom of England" appeared to him to be very significant as regarded this Papal aggression. An observation was made, he believed by the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury, that throughout this brief the Pope condescended only to speak of the "Kingdom of England," and when he spoke of the Roman Catholic Church, he called it not the Church in England, but the Church of England. Now as to the title of "the Kingdom of England," was it used by mistake or design? They could hardly think it was by mistake, because the Pope and his advisers could not be ignorant that in the year 1706 the "Kingdom of England" ceased to exist as a separate kingdom—that it was united with Scotland, and became the "Kingdom of Great Britain." Then was it by design? He could not help thinking so, inasmuch as in one of the shameful periods of our history the "Kingdom of England" became a feudal dependency of the Pope; and he believed it was an inflexible rule of the Papal See, that whatever was once annexed to the patrimony of St. Peter could never be separated from it. He was disposed, therefore, to think that the Pope had used that style and title to the kingdom advisedly, and it was, in his (Sir F. Thesiger's) mind, significant of the purpose.

But then it was said by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, in his admirable speech, that this proceeding on the part of the Pope was only the natural ecclesiastical development of the Roman Catholic Church; and his hon. and learned Friend said, that inasmuch as we had once tolerated that Church, we should be inconsistent with ourselves unless we allowed that Church to expand and grow and develop itself to its fullest completeness and extent. Now, what was the natural development of the Roman Catholic Church? Nothing short of universal dominion. And, lest it should be supposed the Protestants were excluded from that universal rule which the Roman Catholic Church arrogated for itself, he might state that he had found very recently a passage he would read to the House from a book which was a divinity class book at the College of Maynooth in the present day, and in which that principle was stated in the fullest manner: Ecclesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes apostatos, hereticos, et schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jam pertineant. And to show that Protestants were included in these expressions, he would cite another passage: Societas Protestantium sese a schismatis reatu excusare non potest. It was perfectly evident, therefore, from comparing the two passages, that universal rule being claimed over all schismastics, and Protestants being included in that category, the rule applied to them. See, then, the condition in which we should be if the argument of his hon. and learned Friend were correct. He said, we could not admit the principle of toleration in the smallest degree without admitting the right of the Roman Catholic Church to expand itself to the fullest ex- tent of that claimed authority: unless, therefore, we could say to the Roman Catholics, "We will tolerate to a certain extent; we will grant all that is necessary for the exercise of your religion; "so far shalt thou go, and no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed"—unless we could say that, we must be open to all the terrible consequences that might ensue. Well, then, what was the result he should draw from his hon. and learned Friend's argment? He was afraid it was one which he hoped they never would come to, that the toleration of the Roman Catholic religion in a Protestant country was entirely out of the question.

Then it was said, in the course of this debate, why was there all this alarm?—it was the most harmless change that could possibly be imagined—it was a mere change of vicars-apostolic to a hierarchy of bishops. But if the change was so harmless, what meant the note of triumph raised by Cardinal Wiseman in his pastoral? What meant the fervid glow of figurative language with which he described that change? He said— Your beloved country has received a place among the fair churches which, normally constituted, form the splendid aggregate of the Catholic communion. Catholic England has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long vanished, and begins now anew its course of regularly-adjusted action round the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of vigour. Now, he would rather take the view of the Cardinal upon this point, and, to his mind, those were words of ominous import.

Then, it was said they ought not to be dismayed on this occasion, because the Pope had given up a portion of the authority he previously possessed; that vicars-apostolic were creatures of his will, and that, when he had established this hierarchy, they would be entirely independent of him. If the Pope had given up any portion of his power, it was a little contrary to the usual principle of action of the Papal See; and he should rather think if it had been done, it was, to use a phrase of our neighbours, probably nothing more than—reculer pour mieux sauter. But he could hardly believe this to be the fact, when he saw that there was to be a Roman Catholic hierarchy to be established and planted deeply in the soil of England, and to spread its branches far and wide over the land, and it was avowed that that hierarchy was to be the means of introducing, not the canon law as it had been recog- nised by our common law for long a series of years, but the canon law of the Church—the vital principle of which was, as he believed, an ultimate appeal to the Pope. Again, they would have bishops dependent on the Propaganda at Rome. He could not help thinking, therefore, that there was a mere semblance of resignation of any portion of the Papal power by the Pope, and that if this hierarchy should be established, as he trusted it never would be, the Pope would be more powerful than ever. But suppose the Pope should have given up a portion of his power, what consolation was that to us? We were just in the same situation, and had still to guard against encroachment, whether it was the encroachment of the Pope, or of the Church of which he was the head. That being the condition in which we stood, what was it that the noble Lord proposed as an important measure to avert all those consequences? The noble Lord, as it appeared to him, had given the character of his own Bill by his own words. The noble Lord said, in the year 1846, that "as to preventing persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more absurd and puerile than to keep up such distinctions." Well, he turned to the noble Lord's Bill, and what did it propose to do? He found that | it proposed to prevent the assumption of particular ecclesiastical titles; so that, to adopt the noble Lord's own expression, he had given to the desires of the public a Bill which was "absurd and puerile.", Now, he begged the House to consider that if, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had told them, the Duke of Wellington in 1829 considered the 24th section of the 10th of George IV. as no security whatever—if this was the case at a time when all the Acts of Parliament for the protection of Protestantism were in full vigour, and were armed with all their penalties—how could we expect, now that all those Acts were deprived of their force, that any such Act as the present could be of the smallest use? The noble Lord must be perfectly aware that it would be utterly futile for preventing the acts which it proposed to provide against. He had heard that the late Mr. O'Connell was in the habit of saying that he could drive a coach-and-six through most modern Acts of Parliament. He (Sir F. Thesiger) was perfectly satisfied that the Cardinal's state carriage, he was going to say, could be driven through this Bill; but the fact was, the Bill was too small to ren- der that possible, though he was quite sure it could easily be driven over it. Because, what did the noble Lord propose? He proposed to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. Now he would just put this case. Suppose Dr. Cullen addressed Dr. Wiseman, and called him "Cardinal Arcbbisliop of Westminster," but took care to sign himself "Paul Cullen;" and suppose Dr. Wiseman returned an answer, and addressed Dr. Cullen as "Archbishop of Armagh," but took care to sign himself "Nicholas Wiseman:" this would be no infringement of the law, because, in this transaction, there would be no assumption of titles on the part of either party. The Bill of the noble Lord was therefore so weak and so flimsy, that it required only the feeblest casuistry to discover the way to break through it.

His hon. and learned friends the Attorney and Solicitor General had both stated that the Bill would prevent synodical action, and, of course, they would not have brought in a Bill to do so if they had not had that intention. Now, he had some doubt whether the first clause would have that effect. He would bring the Government, therefore, to this test: To prevent any doubt on the point, would the Government introduce a clause specifically preventing synodical action? And here he came again to the extraordinary course which was pursued by the Government with respect to this Bill. The House must assume that it was only after the most careful and guarded deliberation that the clauses were framed which were intended to have so extensive an operation; and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been compelled to say that not only did the Bill not express in terms what the Government meant, but that it actually expressed what they had never meant; for the right hon. Gentleman said they had discovered that if the second section of the Bill was allowed to continue, it would operate to prevent letters of ordination and other documents of that description from having legal validity, the consequences of which would he very serious; and also that if the third section was retained, it would prevent bequests and endowments being left to Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops. Now, he (Sir F, Thesiger) was disposed to think that the legal opinion which had been read to the House by the hon. Member for Dundalk, a few nights ago, to the effect that the operation of the second clause was involved in the first, was perfectly correct, because, inasmuch as the first clause prohibited the assumption of titles, and made the assumption of them subject to a penalty—that, as a penalty always implied a prohibition, and a prohibited act was always void in law, therefore any act done by Roman Catholic bishops under a prohibited title would be an act utterly and entirely void. With respect to the third section, he was disposed to think that under the Bequests Act there might be this distinction—that, supposing a bequest made to trustees and their successors in such terms that there would be a sufficient designation of persons independently of the prohibited titles, the bequest would be considered good in spite of the prohibited titles, and would be carried out. But, however this might be, he felt certain that the noble Lord, with respect to the effect of the second clause being involved in the first, was placed in this extraordinary dilemma, that he must either vote against the third reading of his own Bill, or allow the Bill to be passed which contained provisions which he did not intend. Now he did not see how it was possible for the noble Lord to escape from this dilemma. Yes, there was one way. The noble Lord might introduce into the first clause an exception with respect to the assumption of titles in all cases in which there was the legal exercise of any authority, the consequence of which would be, that the exception would be so enormously large as to swallow up the entire Bill, because the clause would then only apply to the innocent assumption of titles by Roman Catholics when they went into society and were announced by their titles. Seeing, then, that he considered the Bill utterly futile, what was the course he intended to pursue? He anticipated that his statement would be received with a laugh of ridicule when he said that he meant to vote for the second reading. And why? Because he thought that legislation was absolutely necessary, and because, bad as it was, he preferred the minimum of legislation proposed by the noble Lord to having no legislation at all. But he meant to vote for the second reading for a Still more important object—because it would afford an opportunity to those who thought, like him, that the Bill was not what it ought to be, to endeavour to amend it in Committee, by the introduction of clauses suited to the occasion. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole,) had slightly sketched out his notion of what the Bill ought to have been; and he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that, if the noble Lord were sincere in the view he had taken of the Papal aggression, he ought to have come forward with a Bill denouncing that act in explicit terms as a thing opposed to the sovereignty of the Queen, and to have introduced a clause prohibiting all persons from acting under the Papal brief, or under any similar document, under a penalty. This, he conceived—if there was to be any correspondence between the language of the noble Lord and his acts—between his promises and his performances—was the sort of measure which the noble Lord should have proposed. He ventured to think that the public would be satisfied with nothing else. It was necessary, if we would prevent our legislation becoming a proverb and a by word, that a measure should be introduced which should effectually reach the mischief. He was perfectly satisfied that if they proceeded in a vacillating, hesitating, and temporising course, they would entirely fail; that if they touched "the nettle danger" timidly, they would only be stung the more; but that if they grasped it boldly, it would be perfectly harmless. He felt that this was the first of a series of formidable encroachments. He believed that if they did not take their stand on the very breach, they would entail a fearful struggle upon their posterity. He was too sensible of the advantages which he had derived from the light and liberty of the Reformation which had been won for them by the labour, the danger, and the blood of their ancestors, to omit any endeavour on his part to transmit those blessings unimpaired to the latest generation.

SIR J. GRAHAM

begged to be permitted to say a word in explanation. His hon. and learned Friend had stated that he was not present when he (Sir J. Graham) addressed the House on a former occasion, though he had, nevertheless, undertaken to contradict him. He (Sir J. Graham) held in his hand the paper which he then read: it was an extract from the debate which took place on the 8th of April, 1829, in the House of Lords, and he (Sir J. Graham) then read these words, which were given in the report of that debate in Hansard [2 Hansard, xxi., 560]. The Duke of Wellington said, that in 1792 a law was passed in Ireland against the assumption of such titles by the Roman Catholic hier- archy, which was virtually repealed by the Act of 1793, and that since then their assumption of those titles had increased. When he (Sir J. Graham) had addressed the House, he had not taken the precaution of referring to the concurrent testimony of the report in the Mirror of Parliament. He had, however, done so since then, and he there found that the first date which he gave—namely, that of 1792—was erroneous. The Duke of Wellington's words, as given in that report, were to the effect, that if the noble Earl who had spoken previously had looked into the Acts of Parliament, he would have found that an Act of Parliament was passed in 1782 for the purpose of effecting the object in discussion. In 1793 an Act was passed which virtually repealed the Act of 1782. The consequence was that these persons assumed the titles, and the practices complained of continued. The Act of 1782, c. 24, sec. 8 (of the Irish Parliament), for the relief generally of the Roman Catholics, contained a proviso that no benefit to be derived from it should be construed to extend to Popish ecclesiastics who assumed the symbols of their office, or took the rank and title of bishops. It had been hold that the Act of 1793 repealed by implication the Act of 1782.

MR. GLADSTONE

Mr. Speaker, have listened, and I believe the House also has listened to the speech which has just been delivered by my hon. and learned Friend, with gratitude to him for the information he conveyed to us with regard to his views of the state of the law, and at the same time with the admiration which I never fail to experience, not only for his talents, but for the fairness and ingenuousness with which he states his views, and which in him, at least, as in many others, is united with the character of a highly distinguished and accomplished lawyer. But the view of my hon. and learned Friend, as I understood it, is a view formidable indeed. I am obliged to him for his clear disclosure of his view, because I think it is well that this House, which is now invited to enter on a new path, of which we see the beginning it is true, but of which no man among us may see the end, should at least consider the direction in which it tends. That was to me an ominous part of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend which described the course of events in this country during and since 1829. What did he tell us of benefits abused and defences surrendered to the inroads of the enemy? Are those defences not to be repaired; are those inroads not to be repelled? It is too plainly the judgment of my hon. and learned Friend, that not only are such things to be done, but they are to be done by restrictions of the principle of religious freedom, as applicable to the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty. My hon. and learned Friend distinctly said—and he was ready to stake the question on the issue—will you introduce in the Committee on this Rill a clause, prohibiting the meeting of Roman Catholics in synod? Now, about that I apprehend there can be no mistake; I presume there is no Gentleman in this House who will stand up in his place and say, "I shall vote for a clause, prohibiting Roman Catholics to meet in synod, but I am a friend to the full religious freedom of the Roman Catholic body." My own case on this occasion—although I fully admit the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the debate is already exhausted, and that the best arguments which are likely to be made against this Bill have been already heard—my own case is, that I am the only Member representing an English University, and a large and important body of the English clergy, deeply interested in this question, who has not addressed the House in the course of this debate, and who is to take a course in opposition to the sentiments and judgment of all his Colleagues on this question. It is with no sentiment of shame, although with deep regret, that I refer to that difference of opinion; because, while I confess my vote on this Bill will be governed, as I think the vote of every hon. Member ought to be governed, by a regard to the principles of imperial policy, and to the welfare of the entire community, the consideration by which I am led to this conclusion, is a consideration which I am ready to defend and maintain is formed with reference to the single interests of the Church of England and its clergy; because for the reasons given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Cavan last night, and for other reasons, I think the House has had some intimation of the view which I am sure is entertained by many, and which I believe is founded in justice and reason, that the true interests of the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Ireland are not to be promoted at this time of day by pretending to place them between a large body of our fellow-subjects and the fullest enjoyment of religious equality. There have been many matters introduced into this debate, which I confess I think might have been well avoided. There have been allusions to intestine divisions and threatened dangers in the Church of England—a subject which is full of interest, but one in which we shall make no progress, but rather complicate, by mere incidental allusions. I will only say that I do not pretend to make light of the dangers to which the Church of England is exposed. I differ on one point from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst, who in his most eloquent speech expressed an apprehension, which I admit I do not share, for the freedom of the Queen. I have no apprehension in regard to the freedom of Her Majesty. I own I have faith enough in the principle of free representative institutions, and in the principle of free discussion, to believe that the constitution of England is strong enough to laugh at any aggression that has been perpetrated, or meditated, or intended, by any Power in the world, either temporal or spiritual. But as respects the Church of England, it would be idle in me to discuss that its position at the present moment is one of serious difficulty; but if, Sir, I refer to this circumstance now, it is for the purpose of entering my protest against all attempts to meet the spiritual dangers of the Church by temporal legislation of a penal character. Meet those dangers you may, if you will confront them, in a spirit of temperance and wisdom; but you will not meet them if you attempt to cure them by having recourse to remedies which have been tried before under circumstances a thousand times more favourable, and which have utterly and entirely failed you on the day of trial. There are many other collateral subjects which have to do with the province and functions of the House, but upon which we need not enter at the present time; such as legislation as to charitable bequests, legislation in extension of the Acts of Mortmain, legislation for the supervision of religious houses—all questions of a practical and of a highly important nature, and questions which, upon a case shown, may fitly engage the attention of Parliament, as upon principle it is clear and plain that they refer to matters of temporal security, and do not involve in themselves the principle of religious freedom. We pass by all these questions, however, for the present, reserving them until circumstances invite us to consider them. We may also pass certain cases supposed by the noble Lord opposite, who, in his great and lamentable lack, not of declamation against Papal aggression, but of arguments in favour of this specific Bill, did what I have never known done in this House—for he anticipated and shadowed out a variety of possible cases—of possible interference by possible prelates, and possible synods, on possible questions of civil rights; and said if these things arise, it will be necessary to meet them by further legislation. Sir, I had always understood that the actual duties of an English Prime Minister were quite sufficient to employ all the thoughts and energies of any man; and I will therefore take the liberty to pass by all these possible cases, and reserve for myself the power of dealing with them when they arise. The principle upon which we should have to deal with them is plain. If the Church of Rome by any means, whether by bishops or synods, or otherwise, exerted such an interference with temporal matters in this realm as is not permitted in the case of any other religious body, then, I say, we should not only be entitled, but be bound to resist it. But, until the Church of Rome exercises an interference like that—until she oversteps that line which you may think fit to draw not for that Church only, but for all other classes of Christians—the line that is drawn between the spiritual and the temporal—you have no right to interfere—no right to deny them anything which you give to any other body or denomination of Christians among us. Sir, I will briefly give my assent to what was well said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, in regard to the language which has been used both in the brief of the Pope and the pastoral letters of the Archbishop which announced to us the appointment of this English hierarchy. It appears to me that that language was not only unfortunate, but of a vaunting and boastful description. I will not dwell upon the question, whether it was intended to wound the feelings of Englishmen, and to insult the Queen, but it certainly was in language which merited complaint and reprobation, and that in the strongest terms. But, Sir, I want to know whether we are justified in proscribing an Act connected with the religious arrangements of a large body of our fellow-subjects, because that Act has been done by a Pope and Cardinal (for whose words they are not directly responsible) in language that is no doubt in its character justly offensive. I say, Sir, we must look to the substance of the act itself. It is not enough for us to know that the language which has been used is offensive—we must look to the substance of the act done, and by that we must stand or fall. Now, Sir, I do not care to inquire whether the Pope has done everything which might have justly been expected from him, in point of wisdom, caution, and prudence. I can easily conceive that there are other steps which it would have been wise for him to have taken, I will not enter into the question whether the law of nations has been violated. But this I must say, that if the law of nations has been broken, nothing in my opinion could be more disparaging than for the Government to make, or this House to entertain, a proposal to proceed upon that breach of the law of nations only by an Act of Parliament imposing penalties on certain of the Queen's subjects. And the letter of the noble Lord to the Bishop of Durham was a letter which I am certain he would have demeaned himself to have written—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Perhaps I am wrong—perhaps I am in fault—but allow me to explain. I did not mean to say (though I have my own opinion as to the letter) that the noble Lord had done himself dishonour in writing it. I only meant to say that he would have demeaned himself, and disgraced him self by writing it, if when he wrote it, he thought there had been a breach of the law of nations. Nothing surely could be more disgraceful to an English Minister than that, when a breach of the law of nations had been committed, and an insult against the Sovereign of England by a foreign Power, he should have complained of that breach of the law of nations, and repelled that insult, not through any diplomatic communication to the Power which had committed that breach and that insult, but by a letter published in a newspaper. Now, Sir, admitting that in the abstract there may have been a wrong—the extent of which I am not able to define, because I find even legal authorities greatly at issue about it among themselves—no good answer has been made by the Government to the observation that if the Crown has been insulted, and if the independence of the nation has been violated, you should proceed in respect to it by diplomatic intercourse. What has been the only answer made by the Government to this argument? The noble Lord at the head of the Government said, that this had not been done, because a clause had been intro- duced into the Diplomatic Relations Bill, preventing the Pope from sending an ecclesiastic to represent him at the Court of St. James's. Surely, Sir, that was no answer to the proposition that we ought to have sent an agent to the Court of Rome to demand satisfaction for wrong done, if wrong had really been done, any more than the observation of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, who said that the aggression was not a fit case for war. Certainly not; but I should scarcely have expected to hear from that noble Lord that a diplomatic intercourse and a declaration of war meant the same thing. Although it is true that there is a clause in the Act preventing the Pope from being represented at our Court by an ecclesiastic, is that any reason why we should not have sent an envoy to the Pope, representing to him, "You have broken the law of nations; you have invaded the national independence of England?" Would not that aggression have given us a perfect right thus to approach the Pope with a remonstrance? and is there any man who believes that the Pope would have been bold enough to have turned back an envoy: who came to present such a complaint from the Crown of England? According to the practice of the See of Rome, to refuse to receive an ecclesiastic from that See, is in substance to refuse to receive any regular representative of Rome, for all her representatives are ecclesiastics. The great Powers of Europe, not in communion with the Pope, do not decline to send envoys to the See of Rome. Prussia receives no nuncio from the Pope, nor does Russia, and these are the Powers to which we should have looked for an example, when we wanted to know the practice we should have adopted in similar circumstances. Now, neither of these Powers presents the Government with any authority or excuse for having omitted to seek redress for this violation of national independence (as they say they consider it), and this supposed assault upon the rights of the Crown, in the manner which common reason and the law of nations point out, by representing the evil to the party who did it, and demanding at his hands a remedy and redress. That, however, is a matter merely affecting the conduct of the Government; we have now got this Bill before us, and the question is, what are we to do with it. However wrong or however right the Government may have been all along, we must now make up our minds upon the question proposed to us, whether we will vote for the second reading of this Bill. The noble Lord opposite, at the commencement of his speech, stated, as if it were a matter of course, that, in relation to the debate, the Bill had been eagerly attacked upon the one hand, and defended upon the other. I have been less fortunate than the noble Lord. I have heard no Member, out of the thirty or forty who have addressed the House, at all eager in defence of the Bill. I have heard, on the contrary, most of those who have said they will vote for the Bill, speak strongly against it; and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon was eager in denouncing the Bill—though he argued in favour of legislation. And I repeat I have not heard any Member eagerly defending the Bill, or attempting to show that it is at all adequate to the purposes it proposes to have in view. I think my hon. and learned Friend called the Bill "puerile and absurd"—quite sufficient to show his sense of the merits of the measure.

SIR F. THESIGER

I said the noble Lord himself had called it so.

MR. GLADSTONE

My hon. and learned Friend says the noble Lord himself so described his own measure. I must leave the noble Lord to settle that matter with his supporter. But, passing on from these epithets, I come to the representations which have been given of this Bill by the highest authorities. No one has spoken of the Bill more cruelly than some of those hon. Members who have made ingenious speeches in its favour. No speech was more ingenious and straightforward than that of the hon. and learned Attorney General. And how did that hon. and learned Gentleman deal with it? He told us, in regard to the state of the law, that we had a law to prevent the introduction of bulls into England, and that an act which was illegal had been committed; but that there was no law to prevent the Pope's parcelling out of the kingdom into dioceses, and the assumption of territorial titles therein. Well, then, an act illegal has been committed, and another act not illegal; and the illegal act—the bringing in bulls—you are now asked to leave unscathed; while the innocent and lawful act—the assumption of territorial titles—you are asked to render penal by an ex post facto law! Such is the statement of the first law officer of the Crown.

Sir, much has been said upon the relative positions of England and Ireland— poor Scotland has hardly been mentioned in the debate; and there is not time to go into its case; but when we reach the Committee—which I am so bold as to think we may reach some time or other—the case of Scotland will deserve and repay our consideration. For the present, however, we are speaking only of England and Ireland, Now, there was no more impressive passage in the speech of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department than that in which he expressed his conviction that, in spite of all the difficulties that stared them in the face, it was the absolute duty of the Government to adopt a system of equal dealing in regard to England and Ireland, because of the great constitutional doctrines which formed the broad foundation on which they reared this trivial and petty superstructure—doctrines which certainly have precisely the same application to the two countries. Well, what said the hon. and learned Attorney General? I presume when the right hon. Secretary of State made his speech, he did not mean that there was to be a virtual conformity, and a real contrariety—that poor game of speaking one thing, and meaning another. I am sure that was not what he had in his mind. But what was the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General? Why, the Attorney General, in urging the opinion that the Act was in the main an extension to England of the section in the Emancipation Act which at the present period is only practically operative in Ireland, said, it is true that in Ireland that section of the Act has not been called into action, but in England the case will be very different. To apply a law of this kind in Ireland, would be prohibiting what is old; in England, it is only preventing what is new. Therefore the Attorney General gave us to understand that although the law has never been put into operation in Ireland, it was intended to put this new law into operation to such a limited extent as to make the law practically different in England and Ireland—leaving that tolerated in Ireland which is not tolerated in England. That may suit the views of some particular parties, and there arc some plausible reasons in its favour; but if the law is to be in Ireland a dead letter, and in England a living, permanent source of penal proceedings, then I want to know what becomes of your flourishes about the supremacy of the Queen, and the union of the two countries, and about an impartial application of equal laws to the one country and the other. Sir, we are going to divide upon the Bill on a false issue—we are deviating greatly from the rules of this House—under circumstances which, perhaps, justify deviation, but which I cannot altogether pass by without notice. We are going to divide on the second reading of the Bill in the shape in which it was introduced, and yet with an intention announced on the part of the Government to make an essential alteration in it in the Committee; and many Gentlemen will, therefore, probably vote for it who would not otherwise have done so, because the clauses which the Government mean to strike out are yet in the Bill; and, on the other hand, some who would otherwise have voted against the Bill, will not do so, because those clauses are, it is said, to be struck out. Such is the effect of disregarding the wise rules of the House, founded on good sense, that when between the first and second reading of a Bill, there is occasion to announce important alterations, the proper and convenient course is to withdraw the Bill, and introduce another. But now what is the Bill—what is it supposed to be—in itself? Can any man tell me, with any certainty, what the legal effect of the Bill we are going perhaps to pass, will really be? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon said, both the law officers of the Crown laid it down that the Bill originally was intended to prevent "synodal action;" but I understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to say that the Bill does not, or rather in its proposed form (that is, in its proposed clauses) will not prevent "synodal action." [Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] Yes; I understood the hon. and learned Solicitor General to say that the Bill would prevent synodal action.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

I did not say so.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have no doubt now as to the hon. and learned Gentleman's denial, and will not therefore believe the evidence of my own hearing in opposition to it.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

What I said was, that the Roman Catholics themselves had put it on that ground—asserting that territorial titles were essential to synodal action; so that taking away those titles such action would be prevented.

MR. GLADSTONE

I remember the hon. and learned Gentleman referring to that assertion of the Roman Catholics; but I also recollect him adopting that assertion, and making it the basis of the climax of his speech, as showing how stringent and effective the Bill would he. However, as the hon. and learned Gentleman denies this point, I will not insist upon it; I will pass on to another subject. What then is to be the effect of the exclusion of the second and the third clauses? Sir, we have the advantage of the presence of many lawyers, but the great bulk of us are unfortunately not lawyers; or rather, perhaps, I should say fortunately. For what is the assistance we have derived from lawyers as to the vital question—what will be the effect of the expulsion of these clauses? I beseech the House to consider the position in which they stand upon this question. The first law officer of the Crown has stated distinctly that when the second and third clauses are ejected, the first clause will not carry with it the effect of either of these two clauses. I trust I have not misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman's meaning on that point. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, however, produced the opinions of three eminent counsel, stating that the; effect will he that both clauses are involved in the first. That is pretty well by way of contradiction. But then to mend the matter, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon comes in (with an authority second to none) and tells us that neither the one nor the other of these opinions is right; for that the second clause will be involved in the first, but that the third will not. That is a short statement of the position in which the House stands as to its legal illumination on the vital question on which we are about to give our votes. But again. The public suppose that this Bill is intended to do—what? To "maintain the lights of the Crown," and the "independence of the nation." Why, it is to "maintain the rights of the Crown" against what it is contended was an aggression of a foreign Power. And what says the Bill about that? Nothing. It simply imposes penalties on the Queen's subjects. Does the Bill really contain or indicate any two coherent ideas—or is it capable of being referred to any principle whatever, good or bad? I should have a comparative respect for it if it were a consistent embodiment even of a false principle; but there is no principle in the Bill at all. You have the Bill j put forward for the purpose of suppress- ing a foreign authority—what foreign authority does it repress? Is the Bill confined to the prohibition of foreign titles? No. Dissenters' titles are as much suppressed by the Bill as Roman Catholic titles will be. Nor let it be imagined I am putting too remote a possibility; for last Session (I think) Lord Brougham presented to the other House a petition from certain clergymen of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, praying the House to give them (it was not clear how they could) episcopal government, which would be absolutely prohibited by this Bill. The Bill in the first instance also prohibited the existing Scotch bishoprics. The letter of the noble Lord excepted them, while his Bill prohibits them. You have now offered an exception in favour of that Scotch Episcopate, which I cannot except. I have been much connected with the Scotch bishops (on account of very frequent residence in Scotland), and I have a great regard and respect for them; but I cannot desire that an exceptional system of civil privileges or civil toleration should be created for one class of men, from which others, standing in similar circumstances, are to be excluded; and therefore I cannot consent to except any class from this Bill. I want to know, then, why the Scotch bishops are to be made the subjects of a penal enactment. The Bill is directed against "the assumption of territorial titles;" but does it prohibit them? If it prohibited all such titles, I could understand you when you said you were defending the "territorial rights" of the Crown. But you prohibit episcopal, not territorial titles. Are there no others who "divide the country into districts" besides episcopal bodies? The Wesleyans, for instance—[Ironical cries of "Hear!"] I know the meaning of that cheer, and I will deal with it by and by; but I think it is convenient to take one point at a time, and I am upon the point of territorial titles. I say, then, you do not prevent territorital titles; for not only the Wesleyans with their "circuits," but the Presbyterians with their "synods," have "titles" as strictly "territorial" as the Roman Catholic or Scotch bishops—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—I say as strictly territorial as the Pope's bishops. ["Oh!" and "No, no!"] Well, now I ask—wishing to reason as well as I can with that singular argument "Oh, oh!"—I will ask, are there not persons in Scotland who use the same sort of titles as the bishops in England? Both of them have divided the country. The Scotch bishops have their episcopal sees, calling themselves bishops of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and so forth—the Presbyterians of England their presbyteries of London, Birmingham, and other places. I want to know whether you consider the Scotch titles territorial? I say that they are distinctly so; and I say, further, that the titles of the presbyteries are the same. The only difference between the two Establishments is this. The power is concentrated in the hands of the bishops, and it is diffused in those of the presbyteries. The one is as distinctly territorial as the other. If you tell me that the title of the bishop is to be esteemed as territorial, because it is accompanied with temporal incidents, you have the same reason for considering the titles of the Presbyterians territorial. In Scotland the title of bishop is accompanied with many territorial incidents—such as jurisdiction in courts and civil matters. Well, but this Bill will not defend the territorial rights of the Crown; and when the people of England are asked to pass an anti-Romish enactment, they are only invited to agree to an anti-episcopal enactment. The public out of doors understand this Bill to be one to prevent Romish aggression. Now, looking at this Bill merely as an Act for that purpose, I observe that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs treated it simply as an extension of the Act of 1829. I protest, Sir, against that doctrine; it is not a simple extension of the Act of 1829. The intention of the Act of 1829 was to defend against usurpation certain actually-existing titles known to the law. It designated certain individuals possessing those titles, carrying with them, as they did, most important rights. The man who declared himself to be Roman Catholic Bishop of London would have become a claimant to most important rights, of property, political privilege, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It was necessary, as a matter of policy, to hedge in and guard titles of this kind. It was proper to defend the titles of persons who, after all, were legal officers, against the usurpations of others, for the sake of preserving order and preventing confusion. You do not pretend that any collision would arise, or that the courts of law would be embarrassed by the assumption of titles under the Papal brief. Are you not, by prohibiting the assumption of episcopal titles, interfering with the rights of religious bodies? But it is idle to represent this as a mere extension of the Act of 1829, when it involved manifestly the application of a new principle. You come then to the point, will you allow the Pope to create a spiritual office on purely spiritual and religious grounds, and will you allow the Roman Catholics the benefit of that creation if it is not associated with matter of a temporal character? Well, then, it is for you to prove—and it is a point on which I have lahoured in vain to find a proof adduced—that this rescript of the Pope has a temporal character such as will justify your legislation. The Gentlemen who have been engaged—not in defending this Bill, but the vote which they intend to give, and have come hero to make an exposition of their sentiments—have used arguments which divide themselves into two classes. The first of these go too far, and the others fall miserably short. When we hear Gentlemen pointing to Roman Catholic countries, and speaking of the degradation which, they allege, in most instances a country sinks to when she adopts that faith, I say that is an argument which goes a great deal too far. Nothing can be more unfair than to hear it stated that this country or that country is reduced to the lowest state of degradation in consequence of the adoption of the Roman Catholic faith. But what is the inference of such an argument? Why, to put down that religion which is attended with effects so fatal. That is an argument which goes too far. You have plenty of others. You speak of the progress of the Roman Catholic religion, and you pretend to meet that progress by a measure false in principle as it is ludicrous in extent. You must meet the progress of that spiritual system by the strength of another; you can never do it by penal enactments. The other arguments fall as miserably short. My noble Friend the Member for Bath said, that the essential difference between the Roman Catholics and the sectarians is this—the former derive their titles from a foreign Sovereign. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs put the point more clearly. He stated that they derived them from a foreign authority. Well, now, how far does that carry us? If you are dealing with a foreign authority, and if a portion of your fellow-subjects own that foreign authority as their spiritual head, you may have in the certain abstract rights to stand between them and that foreign authority, in order to ascertain that his dealings are strictly spiritual, and do not involve temporal concerns. But I put it to the candour of my noble Friend to say I am right in declaring that the fact that they own a foreign authority for their spiritual head, does not justify you in withholding from them one jot or one tittle of that freedom and privilege which is really religious. It may impose on you certain duties—that their relations with that foreign authority do not involve matters of a temporal character; but this I do repeat, you cannot take your stand upon an abstract principle, and say you derive these offices from a foreign authority, therefore you shall be deprived of them. As such a proceeding as that is unreasonable, when viewed in the abstract, so is it monstrous in practice. One half of Christendom derives these episcopal titles from a foreign authority; and are we to say that one half of Christendom is to be restricted in its religious freedom? Is it not enough for you to show that these bishops are founded by a foreign authority, but you must show me that they are not merely spiritual officers, but that they are founded for temporal purposes. Then, and not till then, you have a justification for interference. Now, we are very near the gist of this case; because I think, after all, it has been gratifying to observe that no man has ventured, in the course of this debate, to say in an intelligible manner, that it was necessary to subject the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics to restriction. On the contrary, we have heard it expressed, in the clearest terms, by the hon. and learned Attorney General and others, that, as far as religious liberty is concerned, the Roman Catholics are to be placed on a footing of equality with every other denomination. What proof has been given that this appointment of the hierarchy in England is not of a spiritual but of a temporal character? Now, is not that the question? The noble Lord at the head of the Government says that a claim made by the Roman Catholics for whatever they say is necessary for the development of their religion, if it does not injuriously trench on the rights of the Throne, or on other rights, must be conceded. If the Roman Catholic tells me that a certain measure emanating from a foreign authority, is necessary to the development of his religion; why, then, I say it is the duty of Parliament to see that that measure is not of a temporal character; that it is merely spiritual; and if Parliament should see that it is of a temporal character, then Parliament may interfere; but if the act of the foreign authority does not involve any interference with temporal concerns, then I say you have no right to meddle with the matter. I have heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon, and also the hon. and learned Solicitor General, say, that they are not satisfied of the necessity for Roman Catholic purposes for the introduction of a regular episcopal hierarchy. I do not know why they should be at all satisfied upon that subject. It is no part of the duty of the Roman Catholics to satisfy me that the act is reasonable or unreasonable; all I have to do is to see that it is not of a temporal nature. This is my opinion, if I understand anything of the doctrine of religious liberty, and if it be not mere fume and vapour it implies that within the scope of religious action Parliament was not to intrude. I am speaking now of an established body, and I cannot hesitate to assert that it is their absolute right to make rules for the regulation of their religious concerns without any responsibility to any one whatever, except the responsibility of showing that they are of a religious, and not a temporal character. What is the amount of proof brought forward—I will not say by the advocates of this Bill—hut by those who intend to vote for it, that this rescript of the Pope is an act of a temporal character? I have in vain listened to the greatest authorities for some proof upon this point. I have heard many passages quoted that it was possible for it to assume such a character. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had been the boldest in the matter, for the noble Lord has distinctly stated that the appointment of bishops was not a spiritual but a temporal act. If I am wrong, the noble Lord will correct me.

LORD J. RUSSELL

I quoted that as the opinion of Dr. Twiss.

MR. GLADSTONE

Dr. Twiss is, no doubt, a very great authority; but I should very much like to know whether the noble Lord adopts the opinion of Dr. Twiss. The noble Lord does not appear to be disposed to throw any light upon that point. What I say is this, the fact of the episcopal office for a long period of years having annexed to it civil incidents, does not justify you in treating that office as civil when those incidents are removed from it. If the appointment of bishops is per se a spiritual act, why interfere? If, on the other hand, it is not per se a spiritual, but a temporal act, why exempt the Scotch bishops? If it is a temporal act, you must exempt the Scotch bishops and take their appointment into the hands of the Crown; or, if not a temporal act, you should abandon this measure. You must do one or the other. Well, Sir, the hon. and learned Solicitor General did not take up a position so broad, so ascending, so commanding. To prove that the act of the Pope was of a temporal, and not solely of a spiritual, character, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Synod of Thurles, who took into their consideration the questions of education, excommunication, and the suspension from ecclesiastical benefices. With regard to the question of education, it is not necessary for me to enter. If their spiritual influence in temporal matters stretches beyond the bounds to which they are entitled by the rights of citizenship, limit them by law, but do not abolish their spiritual office. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of excommunication and suspension from the ministry. The Roman Catholics are not the only religious denomination who exercise such privileges. I apprehend that suspension from benefices is perfectly common in the dissenting denominations in England, and in the Free Church of Scotland. Why then is it more of a temporal character in the Roman Catholic Church than it is in any other communication. The suspension of bishops is quite the same with the suspension of the pastors of other sects. It is true that in some cases it may incidentally affect temporal interests; but there is no religious body in the world where religious offices do not in a certain degree conjoin with temporal incidents. It is not enough to show that Roman Catholics in this particular partook of the constitution of every other body of religionists. It must be shown that they did something in regard to temporalities which is peculiar to themselves; and I can venture to say that they have never given proof, and that they have never offered proof, with relation to any details of ecclesiastical machinery, that there was an interference with temporal affairs required by the Roman Catholic Church of any other kind than that which was necessarily incidental to the practice of all religious bodies whatever. But it appears to me that this is a very serious matter, because I am labouring to gather out of this debate, not proofs of insolent language, or matters of that nature, but, if it could be found, a proof of the tem- poral matters aimed at in the rescript of the Pope, for without that you have not the shadow of a ground upon the principle that you have yourselves laid down for passing this Bill. Well, Sir, then we have heard about the canon law, and if it was the "canon law" in another sense, more alarm could not have been displayed, considering that you cannot explain your own Bill, and that your ablest lawyers have employed themselves in vain to do so. I must confess I entered upon the examination of it with some hesitation and reluctance. But it appears to me that there is abundant matter upon the surface of this question to enable us to come to an opinion. I take this canon law in its worst sense, and I presume that hon. Gentlemen will be satisfied if I take it from Boniface VIII. and Honorius IX., as cited by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford. Does this Bill shut it out? Is there any declaration in this Bill that Roman Catholics are not to be governed by it? No such thing. You had a faint and distant hope given you by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General that indirectly by striking out synods, you would shut out the canon law. But the hon. and learned Solicitor General within the last quarter of an hour has dispelled the illusion which you cherished. The hon. and learned Gentleman has distinctly shown that the Bill will have no such effect whatever. But I will not stop short of the principle that has been laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon—that, however oppressive this canon law may be upon the laity, let hon. Members of Parliament who are going to vote for this Bill because they are afraid of the canon law, let them know this fact, that it has not the slightest tendency to shut out the canon law. However unreasonable in its operation, I lay down this principle—that it is their affair and not yours. There will be no religious freedom in this country if Parliament is invited to interfere for the professed purpose of redressing the supposed grievances of parties who willingly adopt and submit to them. I cannot conceive anything so monstrously absurd, as that when a number of persons claim religious liberty, that is, the right to form an ecclesiastical system for themselves—for it is their right to belong to any system, from Mormonism upwards—and having framed such a system, and having chosen it, when they find themselves rubbed and fretted by some part of it, they should come to Par- liarnent to rectify their bungling handiwork. If the operation of that system be unjust to any portion of its members, it is a free system. Those members are free men. They do not ask our assistance, and I am bound to say that they do not seek the protection you offer them. Not like other protected interests, they repudiate it, and all they beg of you is, to let them alone. But again, the profound unreasonableness of the argument upon canon law deserves to be remonstrated upon. By what law are the Roman Catholics at this moment governed, and what is the worst thing in the canon law? Is it not this, that it gives too much power to the Pope, and does not introduce enough of the constitutional principle in the government of the Church of Rome? Now, something of the constitutional principle it does introduce. You will not deny that diocesan bishops of the Church of Rome have certain rights against the Pope, and that, under ordinary circumstances, he cannot dismiss them without bringing them to trial; and then the diocesan clergy have also important rights against their bishops. What is the present position of these very men? Why, it is absolute mastery, on the part of the Pope, of their religious liberty, without any stint or limitation. There is nothing which he cannot do. They have not one right of any kind whatever. Every bishop and every layman holds his office or benefice at the sole absolute and arbitrary will of the Pope of Rome. It is true that, in the words of Boniface VIII. and Honorius IX., it is declared necessary for the salvation of every human being to hold himself in entire subjection to the Pope of Rome. But you must recollect that, whatever change you now make, will go far to give these men legal rights, to a certain degree, against the Pope. Well, Sir, we are no judges of the expediency or spiritual necessity of this measure. I feel, I grant, if we are to consult our feelings as members of the English Church, it is a very different matter. It is not agreeable to us. I confess it wounds me, as a member of the English Church, to see hierarchical ascendancy spread over the land. It appears to me perfectly right and legitimate for the clergy of the Church of England, in an ecclesiastical sense, to make these protests. I do not speak of particular language, I speak of the act itself, which is a totally different matter from interfering with the secular rights of the Roman Catholics. That is a question which is now to be decided, and on which I trust the House will well consider the verdict it is about to give. I may be wrong, but my opinion is, that in the unforgotten corners of the land the doctrine of supremacy will reach far enough, and that all these proceedings of the Roman Catholic Church are illegal. When, at the period of the Reformation, statutes were passed declaratory of the common law, and when it was stated that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be annexed to the Crown, no exception was permitted to exist. When, by our acts of toleration, other persuasions were allowed to exist, nothing was done to legalise their spiritual jurisdiction. By the Act of Toleration, the worship of God was permitted under certain conditions; but there is no distinct authority for exercising acts of religious jurisdiction, such as those acts of the Wesleyan Conference in the expulsion of Messrs. Dunne and Griffiths. I do not know whether the House is aware of the passage in what is considered a high authority; but you will not be sorry to hear it, as it shows the extent to which, if we take it in the abstract, the doctrine of supremacy may be carried. In 1725, Bishop Gibson, the Bishop of London, wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, who was, I think, then Secretary of State, stating that, in the colony of Massachussets, the Independent Ministers—a persuasion which was on the footing of a tolerated church—had intimated to the Council of the Colony their desire and intention to meet in synods. This question was referred by the Duke of Newcastle to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General—Lord Hardwicke was then Attorney General—to know whether it was legal; and the advisers of the Crown said— We take it to be clear, in point of law, that His Majesty's supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, being a branch of His prerogative, does take place in the Plantations, and that synods cannot be held, nor is it lawful for the clergy to assemble as in a synod without his royal license. That plainly proceeds on the principle that all prescriptive Acts extended to dissenting bodies, and were so stringent that they followed even into the colonies, and even in the colonies they were not allowed to meet in synod. And the law officers go on to recommend that if the synod should be sitting when the opinion arrived out, it should not be dissolved, because that might countenance the right of meeting, but that it should be stopped by veto. I am not aware, and I am not able to find out that any distinct Act passed since that date, gives any expressed legality to any act of jurisdiction whatever. That may be so, or it may not. All I will observe is, if you fall back on the doctrine of supremacy in its highest and most rigid form, I protest, for one, against its unequal application. If it is applied to the Roman Catholics, let it be applied also to the Wesleyans and all other bodies. In my opinion, the universal sense of the House would revolt against such applications; therefore, do not extort from the ancient doctrine of supremacy a proposition which is unfavourable to religious liberty, and a partial and exceptional application to the case of the Roman Catholics. There is one important part of the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government in which I emphatically agree, and that is where the noble Lord speaks of the great change in the ecclesiastical spirit of the Roman Catholics. We all know that body, as well as others, has laboured under a division of parties—some class of persons taking much more extreme views of centralising the ecclesiastical power in the Court of Rome; others holding principles in form far more comprehensive, and allowing more for ancient law and usage. Of those two parties, I understand the noble Lord to state, and I agree with him—I contemplate it with the greatest regret—that the extreme party has gained great ground within the Roman Catholic communion of late years; and that the moderate party, which we may say was, a hundred years ago, the prevailing party, is now evidently not the prevailing, but only of secondary importance. Well, Sir, I agree with the noble Lord in his statement of the fact, and the sentiment of deep regret with which he regards it. An impression prevails in this country, which the speech of the noble Lord has done much to foster, that this measure we are now considering is a measure intended, and is not only aimed at the Roman Catholic religion as a whole, but especially is a measure to strike at the advance of ultramontane principles. If it were so, I still say it is no affair of ours. I share in the regret and dissatisfaction of the noble Lord; but my opinion still is, it is no affair for this House. But now I am going to take a portion of the case, which has been hardly touched upon on the present occasion, and entertaining, as I do, a strong opinion on the subject, I beseech the House to follow me with a few minutes of patience, whilst I examine, not in the colour of my own prejudices, but by the clear light of history, this important question—What is the real character of the measure now introduced into the Roman Catholic communion? For, Sir, I say you think you are attempting to restrain oppression on the Roman Catholic laity, to repress the views and interest of those extreme principles in the Roman Catholic Church; but I shall show you directly the reverse is the fact, and I shall show it from a series of historical testimonies which I defy you to shake. My assertion, Sir, is this: As in the Roman Catholic communion at large, so within the limits of England there have been two parties since the Reformation, and the division of those two parties has been singularly clear, I am not now speaking of Ireland, but as respects the, history of the internal concerns of the Roman Catholics in England. In the reign of Elizabeth, when the pressure of penal laws was at its height, the bulk of the laity and the bulk of the secular clergy pursued one line of secular policy; and the regular orders—most of them, at least, and especially the Jesuits, together with the Court of Rome—pursued another line of ecclesiastical polity. The moderate party in the Church of Rome ever since the Reformation, at every moment of breathing time, have lifted up their voice, and endeavoured to make it heard at the Court of Rome. On every occasion they have been struggling for this measure of diocesan government. The extreme party in the Church of Rome—I do not use the term offensively, but for the sake of brevity—represented by the cardinals and the regulars—have been struggling to resist this measure of diocesan government. Now I ask you to grapple with me, not on the ground of vague impressions, but of facts which I can give you; and if I succeed in proving this part of the case, that ever since the Reformation, for the course of nearly 300 years, the mass of the Roman Catholic laity have been engaged in supplicating for this measure, you will, I think, see that it will be most gross injustice, by interfering by an Act of prohibition, to strengthen the hands of their opponents, on the pretence that ultramontanism will interfere with the accomplishment of these desires. The noble Lord referred the other night to the works of Mr. Palmer, a theologian in the Church of England. This gentleman has written an elaborate and learned book on the Church of England; and he maintains exclusively the rights of the Church of England, and he twits and taunts the Roman Catholics with being no Church. "The Romish community in England is not a Church of Christ." Why not? Because she has not diocesan bishops. How can the noble Lord refuse that to the Roman Catholics which a Protestant writer himself acknowledges to be essential to constitute a Church?

But, Sir, I pass on from that, because I am most anxious to call attention to a series of facts, which substantiate what I say, that the Roman Catholic laity and secular clergy have been struggling to obtain this measure of diocesan bishops, and that they have been always struggling to obtain the measure with the sanction and countenance of the British Government. The British Government has been opposing, until the present moment, the system of vicars-apostolic, and encouraging the Roman Catholics in their efforts to obtain diocesan bishops. Sir, I shall quote facts from Dodd and from Butler, whose fate it was to spend his life in religious controversies, but who never lost the spirit of a peacemaker, as one of those to whom blessings arc promised in this life and in the life to come. I shall quote also from Berrington, a Roman Catholic authority. In 1584, when the old episcopacy was broken up, Dr. Watson was then the last Bishop of Lincoln, and thus speaks Mr. Butler:— The gradual failure of the hierarchy was felt, and a plan to divide England into two districts, with certain arrangements of order and subordination, was formed. But to this the regulars objectted, as tending to interfere with their special exemptions and privileges. In 1586 the matter advanced further. There were three plans: bishops in ordinary, bishops in partibus, and an arch-priest. The bishops in ordinary was evidently the right plan. Look what they say with regard to the view the Government took of this measure. What Government? Not the Government of modern Whiggism, which has spent its life in advancing religious liberty; but the Government of Queen Elizabeth desired that any jurisdiction to be exercised over Roman Catholics, should be exercised through the medium of diocesan bishops. In fact, so generally was it understood that the appointment of bishops would be acceptable to Elizabeth and her Ministers, that the Catholic opposers of the measure used this very circumstance as an objection to it, observing that it was impossible to suppose that any plan could be acceptable to their adversaries if they did not foresee that it would essentially prejudice the Catholic religion. At first, however, the whole Catholic body seems to have been unanimous in favour of the measure That is the testimony of Mr. Butler with regard to the disposition of Queen Elizabeth, whose sentiments were tolerably decided with respect to her own religion. In 1598, having failed in obtaining these districts, the secular clergy sent a deputation to solicit the Roman See for the appointment of a bishop in ordinary with suffragans. In 1602 the secular clergy sent a second and third deputation for the same purpose. In 1607 Mr. Butler writes— It appears by a letter of Father Augustine, Prior of the English Benedictine Monks at Douay, that two clergymen, soliciting the appointment of bishops, were then at Rome. In 1621 James was informed by some of the principal clergy how anxious they were to procure a bishop; and it is added by Berrington— The measure was not displeasing to the King, provided they chose a man of moderate principles, and not disagreeable to himself. In 1631 the Roman Catholic clergy and laity presented a memorial to the Pope, praying for the appointment of diocesan bishops. In 1635, Panzani, the nuncio or envoy of the Pope in England, in the reign of Charles I., says, "the regulars were busily employed, and making interest that another bishop might not be sent over." In 1657, the chapter appointed to exercise episcopal jurisdiction during vacancies, prayed the Court of Rome to send a diocesan bishop with ordinary power, and they sent a message, "that they dared not accept of any extraordinary authority"—that meant of vicars-apostolic, the title at that time not being known in the Christian world; and the chapter of the Roman Catholics, in 1657, not under the Stuarts, but under the Commonwealth, said they dared not accept vicars-apostolic, because "it would be against the laws of their Catholic ancestors, and against the will of the State." In 1660 the Catholics still had an agent at Rome, Dr. Gage, who represented the laity, and sought the Court of Rome to grant ordinary bishops. They said they would give us vicars-apostolic. Now Mr. Berrington said the title vicar-apostolic, "vicarius apostolicus," was adopted "in order to convey more distinctly that idea of independence, which, jealous of all its prerogatives, the Court of Rome was compelled not to surrender." So far did this disposition of the English Roman Catholics to seek a diocesan episcopacy (not ultra montane, but in the moderate sense) extend, that they actually made up their minds to make application, not to the Pope, but to the Archbishop of Rouen, begging him to consecrate diocesan bishops for them. The Archbishop of Rouen, a prince of the Gallican Church, according to Mr. Berrington, agreed to consecrate a bishop for the Roman Catholics of England. The Court of Rome interfered and prevented it, always holding out the promise of vicars-apostolic. In 1661 there was a general assembly of the Roman Catholics. Again they prefer the subject of obtaining bishops; and now Charles II., doing exactly as James I. and the Government of the Commonwealth had done, did he command that they should not receive a bishop? No; but not to meddle with, or accept of any extraordinary authority from Rome. In 1665, the clergy prayed against vicars-apostolic, and two reasons alleged were, first, that they were forbidden by the State; secondly, that the laity had declaimed against them, and protested that they could not submit to any jurisdiction of vicars-apostolic. In 1670, exactly the same thing happened. In 1681, there was a most remarkable controversy. At that time the important controversy was going on with respect to the question of the oath of allegiance. The moderate party amongst the Roman Catholics were in favour of the oath of allegiance. The Papal See was against it. The Papal See wanted a lever to work upon the Roman Catholics of England, and induce them to refuse the oath of allegiance; and what lever did it choose? Why, this very subject, and it said, "Unless you will join the Papal See in denouncing and refusing this oath of allegiance, we will not give you the diocesan bishops." Was not that then hardship and injustice? If the Roman Catholics of the present day were engaged in pressing for these diocesan bishops, and if one of the reasons why they could not get them was because of their loyalty to the Crown, which, notwithstanding their reverence for the Pope, would not suffer them to reject the oath of allegiance, was it possible to conceive greater injustice than for us now to say that their seeking for these bishops, which they had been doing for three hundred years, was a mark of want of loyalty, and of a divided allegiance? We now approach the period of the Revolution. In 1685 the Roman Catholics still attempted to obtain these diocesan bishops, and had a long communication with James II. on the subject. They besought him not to admit vicars-apostolic— A government unknown to Christendom, and having no independent power, which was dependent on the Pope's will, and therefore arbitrary and uncertain." [Now listen again,]" And because the government by vicars-apostolic was against the spirit of the ancient laws of England," whereas "an ordinary bishop will be obliged to espouse his Majesty's and the kingdom's interests in the duo execution of the said laws." [And lastly,] "that the very name of a vicar-apostolic will raise in his Majesty's Protestant subjects an apprehension of the kingdom's being subjected to the immediate jurisdiction of a foreign Court, against the provisions of which Court, either ecclesiastical or civil, all his Catholic ancestors thought themselves obliged to stand upon their guard." [And James's answer was,] "I will admit of no bishops from Rome, but with ordinary powers, nor shall Mr. Leyburn be received in the character of vicar-apostolic. Mr. Berrington says this, which does him honour (when James said he would introduce this against almost all the reclamations of the secular clergy)—he indignantly says— Did he think the Catholics of England so depended on the will of the Pontiff, or were so completely a part of his stock, that without their consent he could dispose of them, or give them away, as he may his sheep, that roam for food over the putrid plains of the Campagna, or on the parched sides of the Appenines? Now I want to know whether I have given in historical demonstration that, down to the period of the Revolution, the lay Roman Catholics of England were ever seeking this measure of diocesan episcopacy, that the force which withheld it came from the Court of Rome, and was the force of those bodies who were most devoted to the propagation of extravagant doctrines concerning the power of the Papal See; while, on the other hand, the civil Government of England held that they were willing to receive diocesan bishops, and that nothing could induce this country, until we came to the time of the traitor, James the Second, to receive vicars-apostolic? For a hundred years subsequently to the Revolution, I have no evidence on this subject; and I now come to the time when new and penal laws were enacted against the Roman Catholics. They had vicars-apostolic, and they got on as best they could under the oppression of the penal laws. But directly the Roman Catholic body, in homely phrase, got their heads above water—when the era of the repeal and relaxation of penal laws arrived, then again appeared this question of the introduction of diocesan episcopacy. And for what purpose was the agitation started, that we should have diocesan bishops instead of vicars-apostolic? Why, it was that they might consult truly the mind of the British Government, and reward them as far as possible for the boon they had conferred upon them. The great mind of Mr. Pitt had a distinct opinion upon this subject; and I hope the day is not yet come when any of us shall be ashamed of inarching under his banner. Mr. Pitt's opinion was opposite to that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and opposite to that which I am afraid the majority will affirm here. But I look back upon the prophetic sagacity of that great man, and learn a lesson to be wise in time, from considering the multitude of questions which, with his enlightened views, he would have solved for England, if his power had been equal to his intellect or his will. I will show you the opinion of Mr. Pitt. From direct sources, unfortunately, it is impossible to produce it, as his biographies are so unimportant and imperfect, that I regret to confess I can gain no direct authority from them; but this I can show, what the Roman Catholic body did when they were in direct communication with Government. During the Ministry of Mr. Pitt, we have a Relief Act that was brought out in 1791. In December, 1790, there was a meeting of a committee of English Roman Catholics. Mr. Hussey was sent as deputy to Rome to smooth the way for the Relief Act. People then, as now, were jealous, and in a spiritual and religious sense justly jealous, of the Papal interference, with respect to the government of Roman Catholics by vicars-apostolic, and the interference in this country by the Pope. Mr. Hussey was to endeavour to smooth the way for the Relief Act, and he was to endeavour, also— To pave the way for having bishops in ordinary elected"—[I am going to read words that doubtless you will take advantage of]—" elected by the clergy, on two grounds; first, on account of the great utility of the change in the present circumstances of the English Catholics; secondly, on the supposition that the Legislature might soon require that change to be made. I won't go into the subsequent history which has been touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, because there is no doubt that in later years the same thing could be shown to have happened. Sir John Cox Hippisley resided in Rome, endeavouring to smooth the way for an arrangement between the Pope and the British Government, and he wrote from Rome, after communicating with the Pope's Ministers, to assure the British Government, That the See of Rome was ready to recede from the nomination of apostolic vicars, in whom, at present, was vested the ecclesiastical government of the Catholics of Great Britain, and thus to liberate Her Majesty's Catholic subjects from all vicarial or delegated power. But it will be said, it was proposed that those bishops were proposed to be elected by the clergy, and that the bishops recently nominated for this county were appointed by the Pope. That is true; I should be better pleased if they were to be elected by the clergy. But you must admit that to get diocesan bishops is a step towards popular election. It is the establishment of a local principle. As long as the system of vicars-apostolic continues, you have the Roman Catholic system wound up to the highest point; by the introduction of diocesan episcopates, you give scope to local principle, and to a class in the Roman Catholic Church, certain fixed and intelligible rights; thus tending, pro tanto, to attach them to yourselves, and to detach them from allegiance to the Pope. Still retaining my protest that we have nothing to do with the internal arrangements of the Roman Catholic communion, except to see that they do not invade the temporal sphere, I call upon you to show from history the reverse of what I have stated, that the extreme party amongst the Roman Catholics, the high Papal interest, was the party which arrested the principle of diocesan episcopacy, and that the moderate party, by appeals to the Government of this country, and missions to the Court of Rome, had always affirmed that principle. There are here before us formidable facts. We are told that the high Papal influence gains ground in the Court of Rome, rendering it more and more a close hierarchical system. Now, I presume, it should be a recommendation to any measure that it tended towards freedom, and to stop the baneful tendency of this course of affairs in Rome. Now, my conviction is, that the course which you are taking, so far from having any tendency to stop that course of affairs, has just the reverse. You are annoying the Roman Catholics with a little miniature of a penal law. You have taunted my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, and say he has not made up his mind as to whether it is a nullity or a per- secution. Now it is not necessary to make up your mind upon that. If it merely puts a declaration upon paper of religious inequality, wanting the insults, then it may be a nullity, as regards giving satisfaction to the public feeling of England; but still it may be a persecution as respects the consciences of the Roman Catholics. Both a nullity and a persecution in their essence may very well be combined, and I believe have been combined in this little Bill, If you wish to exercise a beneficial influence over Roman Catholics, reverse your policy. Take them to you by kind legislation; deal out to them equal justice. Hold them within the sphere of spiritual affairs. Subject to that limitation, deal with them kindly and appeal to their feelings. The Roman Catholics of England have been distinguished by loyalty. There you have something to work upon. Cultivate the principle of attachment to the country and to the Throne; but if you drive them back upon the Pope, and meet them with enactments which show your disposition to go backwards, what do you expect but to find them alienated and estranged in England, where they are few? And on the other side of the Channel, in Ireland, where they have an overwhelming majority, disaffection may be fearfully increased. I might refer to facts which show that these principles are beginning to have their practical application. When you opened the Colleges in Ireland last year, there was much said of division of feelings amongst the Roman Catholic laity. Some portion was disposed to agree with an ecclesiastical authority, and another portion was disposed to take the benefit of the education which was given forth. I hear nothing of that division of feeling now, because you have contrived to band together the whole Roman Catholic body of England and Ireland against you, whether in respect to the Colleges or to the appointment of Dr. Cullen, and you have contrived to unite together against you the Roman Catholic body in a greater degree, almost, than is upon record. Whether we look at the matter in the view of policy or of generosity, our duty is equally clear to resist the present measure. The question really comes to us, will we go forwards or backwards in the matter of religious liberty? I have not knowingly omitted any allegation of the advocates of the Bill which tended to show the interference of the Pope with temporal matters. No such interference has been proved, or attempted to he proved, except in the limited sense incidental to the movements of all religious characters. If it be so, to cite and appeal to the principle of religious freedom is not a mere cant phrase, but it is a stern reality, it is a substantial truth; and I ask you again, will you go backwards or forwards in the career of religious freedom? Have you no faith in your free institutions? Do you think so ill of England—do you think so ill of the national character—do you think so ill of the capacity of your religion to bear the brunt of free competition, as to say that you will now attempt to fence it about with legal enactments, instead of trusting to its own spiritual strength, and to the firmness and depth of your own convictions—above all, to this conviction, that, if the truth is on your side, God will give you the victory? Oh, Sir, I hope you will cast away the unworthy means of fencing about that which, if it required to be so fenced, would be little worth defending. It is useless to say that this is a trifling retrogression. Of course it is. All such retrogressions begin by small measures. But what security have I, if I vote for the second reading of this Bill—if I desert the broad and strong ground of principle that leads me to abide by the religious principles of all classes of the community—what security have I that other more formidable measures may not be in the background, and that for another half century the question of civil disqualification and religious liberty is not to absorb the time of the British Parliament, divide the minds of the British public, unseat Ministers, dissolve Parliaments, and interrupt the regular progress of civil legislation. It is said that the character of the noble Lord is a security that we shall have no such retrogression. If you tell me that his pledge on this subject, and the uniform course of his life is such a security, I tell you that I once thought it was. But if j you prophesy that the noble Lord will not proceed to prohibit the synodical action of the Romish Church, and will not proceed to reintroduce that system, far more hateful than a system of impartial proscription—a system of exceptional proscription—I ask you what you would have thought in the year 1845, if it had been foretold that the noble Lord would on the 25th of March, 1851, recommend to the House the second reading of a Bill to prohibit Roman Catholic ecclesiastics from bearing titles? How many men are there in this House who would have believed the prophecy if it had been made at that time? I do not think you could count them by units. I never heard a more impressive passage delivered by any speaker than one passage in the speech of the noble Lord upon the second reading of the Bill enlarging the endowment of the College of Maynooth. The noble Lord referred to some lines of Virgil, which the House will not regret to hear:— Scilicet et tempus veniet, cum finibus illis Agricola, incurve- terrain molitus aratro, Exesa inveniet scabrâ rubigine pila: Aut gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit inanes, Grandiaque effosis mirabitur ossa sepulchris. And he said (I cannot give his exact words), upon the scenes where battles have been fought, the hand of nature effaces the ruins of man's wrath, and the cultivator of the soil in future times finds there rusted arms, and looks upon them with joy as the memorials of forgotten strife, and as enhancing the blessings of his peaceful occupation. The noble Lord went on to say in reference to the powerful opposition then offered to the Bill for the endowment of Maynooth—it seems that the strife upon the question of religion is never to fail, and that our arms are never to rust. Would any man who heard the noble Lord deliver these impressive sentiments have believed that the strife with regard to religious liberty was to be revived not only with a greater degree of acerbity in the year 1851, but that the noble Lord himself was to be a main agent in its revival—that his was to be the head that was to wear the helmet, and his the hand that was to grasp the spear? My conviction is that the question of religious freedom is not to be dealt with as one of the ordinary matters that you may do today and undo to-morrow. This great principle which we have the honour to represent, moves slowly in matters of politics and legislation; but, although it moves slowly, it moves steadily. The principle of religious freedom, its adaptation to our modern state, and its compatibility with ancient institutions, was a principle which you did not adopt in haste. It was a principle well tried in struggle and conflict. It was a principle which gained the assent of one public man after another. It was a principle which ultimately triumphed after you had spent upon it half a century of ago-nising struggle. And now what are you going to do? You have arrived at the division of the century. Are you going to repeat Penelope's process, but without Penelope's purpose? Are you going to spend the latter half of the nineteenth century in undoing the great work which with so much pain and difficulty your greatest men have been achieving during the former? Surely not. Recollect the functions you have to perform in the face of the world. Recollect that Europe and the whole of the civilised world look to England at this moment more than they ever looked before, as the mistress and guide of nations, in regard to the great work of civil legislation. And what is it they chiefly admire in England? It is not the rapidity with which you form constitutions and broach abstract theories. On the contrary, they know that nothing is so distasteful to you as abstract theories, and that you are proverbial for resisting what is new until you are assured of its safety and beneficial tendency. But they know that when you make a step forwards, you keep it. They know that there is reality and honesty about your proceedings. They know that you are not a monarchy to-day, a republic to-morrow, and a military despotism the third day. They know that you are free from the vicissitudes that have marked the career of neighbouring nations. Your fathers and yourselves have earned this brilliant character for England. Do not forget it. Do not allow it to be tarnished. Show, if you will, the Pope of Rome, and his Cardinals, and his Church, that England as well as Rome has her semper eadem; and that when she has once adopted the great principle of legislation which is destined to influence her national character and mark her policy for ages to come, and affect the whole nature of her influence among the nations of the world-show that when she has done this slowly, and with hesitation and difficulty, but still deliberately, but once for all—she can no more retrace her steps than the river that bathes this giant city can flow backward to its source. The character of England is in our hands. Let us feel the responsibility that belongs to us, and let us rely on it, if we make this step backwards, it is one we shall have to retrace with pain. We cannot turn back the tendencies of the age towards religious liberty. It is our business to forward them. To endeavour to turn them back is childish, and every effort you may make in that direction will recoil upon you with disaster and disgrace. The noble Lord at the head of the Government appealed to the Gentlemen who sit behind me, in the names of Hampden and Pym. I have great reverence for the names of Hampden and Pym, in one portion at least of their political career, because they were persons energetically engaged in resisting oppression. But I would rather have heard Hampden and Pym quoted on any other subject than one which relates to the mode of legislation, or the policy to be adopted in dealing with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, because, if there was one blot on their escutcheon—if there was one painful—I would almost say odious—feature in the character of the party amongst whom they were the most distinguished chiefs, it was the bitter and ferocious intolerance which in them became the more powerful because it was directed against the Roman Catholics alone. I would appeal in other names to Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House. If Hampden and Pym were friends of freedom, so were Clarendon and Newcastle, so were the gentlemen who sustained the principle of loyalty while the principle of freedom was sustained by those whose names were quoted by the noble Lord. If he appeals to you in the name of Hampden and Pym, I appeal to you in the name of the great men to whom Hallam says, "we owe the preservation of the Throne of this ancient monarchy" in favour of the Roman Catholics. They were not always seeking to tighten the chain and deepen the brand. Their disposition was, to relax the severity of the law, and attract the affections of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects to the constitution, by treating them as brethren. I hope my appeal in their name will be equally appropriate to the appeal made by the noble Lord in the name of Hampden and Pym. We are here strong in the consciousness of a strong cause. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst said he could claim justice on his side. He has an eloquence that bids fair to earn for himself a place in the front rank of Parliamentary discussion. He has, on this occasion, the advantage of being sustained out of doors by strong popular feeling, and in this House by a compact organisation of the two great parties which constitute the Government and the Opposition. We, the opponents of the Bill, are a minority, insignificant in point of numbers. We are more insignificant, because we have no ordinary bond of union. What is it that binds us together against you but the conviction that we have on our side the principle of justice—the conviction that we shall soon have on our side the course of public opinion? ["Hear!" and "Oh, oh!"] I am not conscious of having spoken offensively; I hope difference of opinion is allowed. I am sure I did not wish to say a syllable that would wound the feelings of any man. But I say that we, minority as we are, arc sustained in our path by the consciousness that we serve both a generous Queen and a generous people, and that the generous people will recognise the truth of the facts we present to them. But, above all, we are sustained by the sense of justice which we feel belongs to the cause we are advocating, and because we are determined to follow that bright star of justice beaming from the heavens whithersoever it may lead.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I have borne a sincere testimony to my desire not to intrude upon the House, by last night voting against the adjournment of the debate; and I hope, under these circumstances, late as is the hour, and considering that few of those Gentlemen with whom I have the honour to act have addressed the House—trusting perhaps to my feeble expression of their views on the subject—I hope I may be allowed the opportunity, with extreme brevity, of expressing my views as to the general question which has been mooted, and as to the particular measure which is now offered to our consideration. We have been informed by the Minister that an aggression has been committed on the supremacy of the Sovereign and the honour of the nation; and by the same means that this information was conveyed to us, we were apprised that that aggression had been committed by a Prince of no great power. Following this intimation of the noble Lord, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield talks of a poor and feeble priest; and more than one hon. Gentleman have taken opportunities of reminding us that the present possessor of the Papal See is surrounded by French bayonets; and they have founded upon those reiterated circumstances a reason for countenancing that aggression which the Government announces to have taken place. Let me remind the House that more than three centuries ago the Pope of Rome was not only supported, if I may use that expression, by French bayonets, but that Rome itself was taken and sacked by a French Prince, and that the Pope of those days suffered indignities greater than any that have been experienced by Pius IX., and humiliations more intolerable than ever Pius IX. was called upon to endure. And yet since that period the greatest achievements of the Papal See have occurred; and since that period, and since the endurance of those vicissitudes and humiliations, notwithstanding the strong will of Henry VIII., and the pure spirit of Edward VI., the Protestant Establishment of England was subverted; and, had offspring been granted to Philip and Mary, I might perhaps have at this moment been addressing a Popish Speaker of a Popish Parliament. No, Sir, whatever opinion we may form of this aggression, it is not wise to despise the Power which may have committed it. I deny that this Prince is a Prince of no great power. I say he is a Prince of very great, if not the greatest, power. I will not dwell upon those millions of his subjects of whom we have heard so often during this debate, but I must remind the House that, independent of that circumstance, between the regular and the secular clergy, the Pope has under his command one million of priests, governed by one thousand bishops, and archbishops to he counted only by the score, the generals and lieutenant-generals of this disciplined host. And, Sir, is this a Power which we are to be told is to be treated in the same manner and viewed in the same spirit as a Wesleyan Conference? Is this a Power which is to be associated with the last invention of Scotch dissent? Sir, when I listened to the ingenious reasoning with which these false and fallacious analogies were attempted to be supported, I for a moment supposed that it was only a display of dialectics calculated to adorn a debate; but when I remembered the great position and eminent talents of those who put them forward, I could not but suspect that there was concealed under it an object of more pregnant interest. And, indeed, Sir, it is scarcely concealed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us: for he says, if you apply this doctrine of the Queen's supremacy to the adherents of the Roman Catholic communion, on what principle can you refuse to apply it the Wesleyan Conference or the Scottish Church? But, Sir, the converse of that proposition is also equally true; and Sir, if the interpretation of the principle of religious liberty, announced at the present day by the Church of Rome, and adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and the Member for Plymouth, be accepted and countenanced by this House, then, I ask, on what plea can you resist the application of that principle not only to the Church of Rome but also to the Church of England? On what ground can you vindicate the restrictions you impose on the Church of England? Why is she not to have the command of her own internal strength and resources? Why is she not to have her synodal action? Why is the Church of England alone to acknowledge the supremacy of the Queen? Sir, amidst this sea of troubles in which we are embarked, that principle of the Royal supremacy has always seemed to me our only guiding light; but the only inference we can draw from the new philosophy with which we have been favoured in so many shapes, on so many nights, by the right lion. Gentleman and his friends, is, that they are opposed to the principle of alliance between Church and State—an alliance which I believe the House of Commons, at least, is not yet prepared to sever. I cannot deal with this question, of what is called by the Minister of the day "Papal Aggression," by the abstract principles which have been so adroitly introduced into this discussion. I must look to the circumstrances which surround us, and they are of a very significant character. I observe on the one side an acknowledged and a great revival of Romanism throughout Europe. No one denies that there is a counter-revival of Protestantism throughout England. What may be the consequences of that struggle which some think impending—which, from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon is, I suppose, in their opinion inevitable throughout Europe—I pretend not to say. The circumstances are so complicated, the possible catastrophe so awful, that one shrinks from the attempt to form an opinion of so terrible a contingency. But what may be the consequences of that struggle in our own country is a subject on which every man in this House and country may be qualified to form a judgment. I confess that the possible result is one which makes me shudder, and I think the Government of the day are only doing their duty, if, it being their opinion that such a contest is about to take place in this kingdom, between Romanism and Protestantism, they come down and propose a measure, or advise a line of policy which, in their opinion, is qualified to prevent the mischief, and to counteract the evils that they deem impending. And now, Sir, I come to inquire whether this measure of the Government is competent for such an office—whether, if the circumstances which the Government have detailed to the House be as they have explained, the measure is calculated to prevent the mischief they contemplate? The noble Lord, in introducing the measure, made a speech which produced a considerable effect. I remember that at the time I ventured to say, that the noble Lord's proposition was not equal to his proem—that the measure as detailed by the noble Lord asserted no principle, and vindicated no principle. Eight-and-forty hours afterwards we had another version of the measure, which had not then been introduced, from the chief law officer of the Crown; and in the version which was then given of the intended measure, it assumed a more important character. Mr. Attorney General informed us that the measure would not merely deal with titles illegally assumed by Roman Catholic prelates, but that it would interfere with bequests and endowments; and he reminded me—I will not say in a tone of reproof, but I must say of considerable self-complacency—that I would find that synodal action was dealt with in the measure. What was the third movement of the Government? All the protestations of the Attorney General were suddenly withdrawn, and we were told that we were to discuss a Bill containing virtually only one clause; and when the Secretary of State made this announcement on the part of the Ministry, he scarcely concealed his opinion that the law would he inoperative in Ireland, and that it would be evaded in England; but he contended that there was a necessity for passing this measure as a demonstration and a protest. Now, I ask the House what could be a more triumphant vindication of the policy recommended by Lord Stanley? If the best course was to publish a protest in the face of Europe, would not that protest in the shape of Resolutions carried to the foot of the Throne by the two Houses of Parliament on the day of their meeting, have been more calculated to affect the public opinion of Europe, and to sustain the spirit of England, than a project of law, which, in the course of six weeks, has undergone numberless transformations—which is now acknowledged by its projectors to be inefficient—and the fate of which, after so long an interval, is more, perhaps, than doubtful? I want very briefly to place before the House the reasons why I disapprove of the Government measure; and the first of those reasons is this, that by implication, it admits that the conduct of the Cardinal, of which we complain, is not illegal. That conduct must either he legal or illegal. If it is legal, then he has not offended. If it is illegal, why not deal with him by law? But I am told you cannot deal with him by law, because the law is obsolete. Sir, an obsolete law is one which deals with circumstances which no longer exist, and which cannot again occur. But the circumstances of the present case are fresh and flagrant. The law is ancient, but it is not obsolete; and it is treason against the liberties of England to pretend that our ancient laws are obsolete, because all our liberties depend upon ancient laws. The reason why I object to this Bill, secondly, is, that it attempts to legislate against phrases and not against facts; it attempts to legislate against titles. Now this, 1 think, is clear, that if you pass this law, no person who could be subjected to its penalties would ever place himself in a position where he might be liable to them—yet not the less will he use the titles and exercise the influence consequent upon his assumption. The whole thing is founded upon a fallacy; because if you choose to legislate against these titles, of which I disapprove, you ought not to legislate against the assumption of these titles by bishops of the Romish Church, but against the ascription of titles of honour and dignity to them by Her Majesty's Ministers. What a mockery, when Her Majesty's Ministers themselves be grace and be-lord these individuals, that they should now propose penal enactments because they are treated by the rest of Her Majesty's subjects with respect and honour! The Secretary of State for the Home Department tells us, in defence of his conduct, that the ascription to them of these titles was an act merely of social courtesy; but social courtesy has proceeded so far in our Colonies as to give them coordinate authority with the bishops of our own Church. Therefore, I say, that nothing can be more futile than to legislate against this assumption of titles, and not against the ascription to them of titles by the Government. I said also—and this is the last point on which I shall trouble the House—I said, on the first occasion, when the Bill was introduced by the Minister, that it asserted no principle; and that is a position which will not now be questioned. It would have asserted a principle, if it had laid down a rule that no person should accept any place or dignity, employment or office, ecclesiastical or civil, from any foreign Prince, except with the consent of Her Majesty. That would have been a principle—that might have been the foundation of a national enactment. It would have taken the form of a statesmanlike precaution, instead of the present measure, which appears to be a mere spiteful enactment against Popery. Such a measure would have included the Romish bishops in a clear and sensible manner. But then it might be said, that to require the assent of the Crown, would be the same as giving the Crown a veto. I will not detain the House at this late hour by any discussion on the subject of a veto; 1 will only remark the consent of the Crown would not be equivalent to a veto. A Roman Catholic bishop would receive his appointment as a matter of course; he would receive it on doing that which every Gentleman does when lie takes his seat in this House, namely, taking the oaths appertaining to the office he is about to fill.

I feel it utterly impossible, after this protracted debate, after the able and elaborate address which we have just heard, and at this late hour of the night, to enter into this discussion as I would wish. I confess I feel very great difficulty in attempting to criticise the measure of Her Majesty's Government. The relations between me and the noble Lord are not favourable to candid criticism. If the noble Lord were indeed "my noble Friend," if there subsisted between us relations of friendship, even of "affection," then I might avail myself of the happy privilege of mutual sensibility, and he may rest assured that I would spare neither his policy nor his feelings. And this reminds me that, while 1 have been attempting to prove that this measure of the Government is really inefficient, and one for the second reading of which I shall only vote, for the reasons already expressed by my hon. and learned Friend—not in any way pledging myself to the ultimate support of the Bill before the House; this reminds me that while I am expressing my opinion that this Bill is utterly- inefficient—that in England it will be evaded, and in Ireland be inoperative; a high authority has treated it in a very different spirit, and described it in very different language. I heard that this Bill was to be opposed because it was a reversal of a policy, I have heard this phrase before. I remember two years ago making a very moderate proposition to mitigate the burden of taxation upon one suffering class of Her Majesty's subjects, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon—then my opponent, as he is now the opponent of the Government—opposed that proposition, because it was the "reversal of a policy." But on that occasion the pretext appeared so monstrous that it was not swallowed even by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. On the present occasion, however, the reversal of a policy is to bring with it very serious consequences. The consequences are to be inevitable and immediate, and those consequences are no less than a civil war in Ireland. I heard that announcement with some apprehension, but I heard it with more surprise. The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House of the state of Ireland in 1829. He said, you escaped civil war then, but you will not escape it now if you proceed with this measure. He drew an analogy between the state of Ireland in the year 1829, and the state of Ireland in the year 1851, and according to his reasoning the analogy was complete. I ask the House if the analogy is just—if it is complete—if it is true? If so, what has been the use of all those great measures for the amelioration of Ireland which successive Ministries of all parties for twenty years have agreed in proposing in this House? If the state of Ireland in 1851 is the same as it was in the year 1829, what use was there in granting complete political equality to the Roman Catholics? What was the use of reconstructing the Church Establishment in Ireland? What the use of abolishing tithes, and of raising that great system of national education which was founded by Lord Stanley? What the use of granting that large measure of municipal reform, throwing open the corporations to all creeds, and with a franchise so low that it was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman? Of what use are those new colleges and that Roman Catholic university that you so munificently endowed? What is the use of having done that for Ireland which you did not do for England, in revising the political franchise given by the Reform Bill, if it be true that Ireland, in 1851, as in 1829, is on the verge of a rebellion? I have too much faith, I will not say in the loyalty, but in the common sense, of the Irish people, to believe it; but if it were true, were the lips of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon the lips from which such intimations should be circulated? I make these observations because the right hon. Gentleman is no inconsiderable person; he is one of our foremost men, and, according to the not over-delicate intimations of his friends, is soon to occupy a still more responsible position. The right hon. Gentleman wears the white robe—he stands in the forum as a candidate for the consulship—and it will be just as well, therefore, if the people of this country should consider a little his announcements—strange and singular—in the course of this Session. I propose one day a remission of taxation, and the right hon. Gentleman threatens me with a mutiny in the Army. Some elections take place not very favourable to the views of his limited but accomplished school, and he threatens us with Parliamentary reform. A measure is brought forward, which, according to the description of the Minister, is to resist foreign aggression, hostile to the honour of the nation, and to the supremacy of the Sovereign; and the right hon. Gentleman says, "You will have a rebellion in Ireland." Now I say these are three very remarkable declarations to be made by one man in the course of eight weeks. They should be well considered. Are they calculated to calm the anxious, to encourage the timid, and to protect those who are peaceably inclined? Is the right hon. Gentleman, after all, with this programme of his policy, exactly the "pilot to weather the storm?" There was, indeed, one great measure for the pretended amelioration of Ireland, which, in the course of the last twenty years, was not successful, and it was proposed by the head of the present Ministry. It was a measure that would have despoiled the Protestant Establishment of part of its revenues, in order, as it was practically understood, to partially endow the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. It was brought forward by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and it was mainly defeated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. It shows how little we are acquainted with that which takes place about us, how difficult it is to form an accurate conception even of contemporary events, even of those in which we ourselves mingle, when it was reserved for this debate to inform the House and the country what was the motive which induced the right hon. Gentleman to take the course which he then pursued. It appears now that the opposition to the Appropriation Clause on his part was entirely and solely impelled by an abstract objection to endowments. I wonder whether that was the motive which animated Lord Stanley—he was then the companion of the right hon. Gentleman; they stand together in their chivalry, but neither the House nor the country was in the secret, nor believed that the opposition was founded on—[" Question, question!"] I am speaking to the question; this subject has been introduced by the right bon. Gentleman, and [turning to the interruptor] I saw you cheer him. It was not until the other night that we heard that this opposition to the Appropriation Clause was animated merely by an abstract objection to endowments. If we had heard that reason given by any one else, we might have supposed that it came from one of those titular archbishops with whose correspondence the right hon. Gentleman favours the House, or, for ought I know, even from the general of the Jesuits himself. But what an insignificant cause for the great events it produced! Was it for this that the Cabinet of Lord Grey was subverted? Was it for this that the right hon. Gentleman enlisted under that Conservative banner which he has so faithfully served? I do not believe in civil war in Ireland. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, who has just addressed the House, that the principle of religious liberty is too deeply impressed upon this age for any one to endanger it, or to make its pretended peril an excuse for outrage. It is utterly impossible that Ireland can be again governed, openly or covertly, directly or indirectly, on the principle of Protestant ascendancy; but equally certain it is, that no Government can exist which is not faithful and devoted to the Protestant constitution of this country. In its maintenance are involved greater interests than the existence of a Government—the fate of a Crown, and the destinies of an empire; and, trust me, among all the blessings which it insures to us, not the least important, and not the least precious, are—the civil and religious liberties of the Roman Catholics themselves.

SIR GEORGE GREY

rose to reply, and said that at that late hour, and after the protrated debate they had listened to, he was unwilling to trespass on the attention of the House, but he felt it his duty to make some observations in reference to some of the arguments which had been employed. He felt it impossible not to be struck with the fact that among the most able and distinguished opponents of this Bill, who had displayed considerable talent, and he must add considerable sophistry, in urging their objections to the course taken by the Government, there had been a remarkable absence of any one fixed or definite principle upon which these objections rested. It was said that there were embodied in this Bill principles opposed to those of religious freedom; but he (Sir George Grey) challenged any man to point out those principles. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford in the principle which he laid down, as the one which ought to guide us in dealing with this question, namely, that we must deal with it on the grounds of imperial policy. He entirely concurred with the right hon. Gentleman, that so far as the spiritual progress of the Roman Catholic Church by spiritual means was concerned, we should be departing from the rules by which our legislation ought to be governed if we attempted to fetter by law the progress of that religion, or to place it under any disadvantage in its appeal to the feelings and conscience of the people of this country. He held that while we entertained a deep and firm conviction of the truths of our own religion, and would naturally desire to propagate those truths by impressing them on the minds and convictions of others, we ought to allow to others the fullest extent of freedom and equality in the use of those means which we claimed for ourselves, however much their religious sentiments might be opposed to our own, and however much we might think they involved of religious error. And while on this subject, he could only say that on one account he could not regret the recent act of the Pope, evoking, as it had done, that ardent spirit of attachment to the Protestant faith which had been recently manifested by the nation, drawing together by closer bonds of connection the different denominations of the Protestant community—not to force the Legislature to adopt measures of undue restriction against our Catholic fellow-subjects, but in order to present a closer phalanx of opposition, by means which they were bound to use, and might legitimately use, in common with their Catholic fellow-subjects, against what they believed to be religious error. But the question of religious error and religious truth was not a question which they had a right to discuss on the floor of the House of Commons, and he deeply regretted that anything had been introduced to give a polemical character to these debates. In dealing with this question there were two points to be examined: first, has there been such an aggression on the sovereignty of the Queen of the realm and on the independence of the nation involved in the recent act of the Pope as calls for the interference of Parliament? And, next, is the measure which the Government proposes, one that Parliament ought to adopt? On the first of these questions he was struck with the remarkable differences of opinion expressed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who, in coming to the same conclusion, have differed widely in the premises by which they have arrived at it. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, in a speech, to the ability of which in common with all who had heard it he was willing to do every justice, had defended the act of the Pope as being based on the principles of religious freedom; had denied that it was against the law of nations, and said that it was not only an act which the Pope had a right to perform with the view to complete the organisation of the Catholic Church in this country; but he compared that organisation to the organisation of the Free Church of Scotland, and to that of the Wesleyan body in England; and, of course, the conclusion which he logically drew from the premises which he laid down was, that Parliament ought to be utterly indifferent to this attempt, and that the matter was wholly one that was foreign to the scope of legitimate legislation. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Card-well) who followed next, taking very different-premises, arrived, at the same practical conclusion as to the vote he should give on this question. Instead of saying that the act of the Pope was defensible, he said he had a stronger sense of the aggression that had been committed than any that the Government had expressed, and that his quarrel with the Government was not that it did too much, but that it did too little. He objected to a small religious war, but was quite ready to enter on a great one. Then came the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert) who, adopting the same line of argument as the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, dissented from him to this extent, that he intimated the opinion that same legislation was necessary, but that it should be directed not against the subjects of Her Majesty, but against the Pope himself. He (Sir G. Grey) did not know what sort of legislation the right hon. Gentleman had in view, because he could not suppose they could legislate effectively against the Pope in any other way than by subjecting to penalties those of Her Majesty's subjects who should contravene the law. But the right hon. Gentleman had adopted a tone which caused him some surprise: he had asked how our civil, our political, or our religious state had been affected by the act of the Pope; and then he went on to claim for the Pope the gratitude of this country, because by substituting diocesan bishops for vicars-apostolic he had limited his own authority, and consulted the independence of the nation. He was, he confessed, somewhat surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have adopted that line of argument, because that was not the first occasion that the light hon. Gentleman had placed on record his sentiments with regard to the Papal aggression. He (Sir G. Grey) held in his hand a newspaper published in Wiltshire, in which he found a report of the proceedings of a public meeting of the inhabitants of the county of Wilts, which was held on the 6th of December, 1850, from which the following was an extract:— In order to take into consideration the propriety of giving expression to the almost universal public feeling with regard to the recent proceedings of the Homan hierarchy, by the adoption of an Address to our gracious and beloved Queen, by petitioning both Houses of Parliament, and by the adoption of such other measures as may be considered advisable,' the high sheriff of the county in the chair. It was moved by the Hon. Sidney Herbert, seconded by the Rev. the Dean of Sarum, 'That this meeting regards with profound indignation the present attempt of the Court of Rome to establish, by the authority of a foreign potentate, a Roman Catholic hierarchy in England; that it considers this aggression on the Protestantism of this nation to be repugnant to the spirit of the constitution of this realm; that it involves an unwarrantable usurpation of the Royal prerogative, and a gross insult on the British people; and that it imposes, therefore, on all who value the blessings to the country of its Protestant institutions, the duty of uniting promptly, firmly, and uncompromisingly in the most determined resistance. Such were the opinions embodied in the resolution which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not a sudden impulse that had prompted the right hon. Gentleman. The subject had been before the country for nearly two months, and the Press was teeming with pamphlets relating to it. [Mr. S. HERBERT: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman cheered, as much as to say that he still entertained the opinions expressed in that resolution. If so, he (Sir G. Grey) could only say that the right hon. Gentleman most imperfectly expressed them in his speech the other night. He understood that speech to be an apology for, if not a defence of, the act of the Pope, which was condemned so emphatically in the words of the resolution to which he had just referred. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say he "was ready to unite in an uncompromising and determined resistance" to Papal aggression by measures which he approved. Well, if so, that was not at all contained in that Wiltshire newspaper. An address was agreed to by the same meeting—

MR. S. HERBERT

He could save the right hon. Baronet much trouble, if he would allow him to say that be had distinctly declined to sign the Address, because he could not agree in its sentiments.

SIR G. GREY

Well, then, he had nothing more to say on that subject, except that the Address very closely corresponded to the language of the resolution. But the meeting had also agreed to petition Parliament—he did not know whether unanimously—praying Parliament to take measures to prohibit the use of titles, whether civil or ecclesiastical, implying temporal power, conferred by any foreign prince or potentate, and also to prohibit the introduction of Papal hulls against the Royal authority. He had referred to those documents in order to show that the right hon. Gentleman was not a very safe guide to trust to when he asked the House to reject this Bill on the grounds he had stated. Then followed from the same quarter the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham), who began by making a large admission, that first the language of the Papal brief and the Cardinal's pastoral was arrogant in the extreme, and offensive to the Protestantism of the nation; and further that the act of the Pope was not one that the Government could pass over with indifference, or with the contempt recommended by several of his friends about him. The right hon. Baronet passed in review the various propositions made from different quarters for meeting the aggression of the Court of Rome, but, it would be remembered, without committing himself to the approval of any one of them, and leaving the House in total ignorance of the course which an individual occupying his distinguished position would recommend. He threw cold water on the proposition for a proclamation from the Sovereign, and distinctly dissented from the suggestion for sending a fleet to Civita Veechia or Ancona; and the only course he seemed to favour—which he would do the right hon. Gentleman the justice to say he believed he would be the last man seriously to recommend, was the revival of the Act of Præmunire, and arraigning the Archbishop and his suffragans before the criminal bar of this country upon an indictment upon an old and obsolete statute which, without notice, and in the belief that the statute had fallen into disuetude, would subject them to the loss of all their goods, and to indefinite imprisonment. The hon. and learned Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger) who, although he proposed to give Ministers his vote, was one of the strongest opponents of their measure, distinctly recommended the revival of that ancient statute. That, however, was a course which the Government did not feel it their duty to adopt, for the reasons which had been stated by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) characterised the Papal rescript as uncourteous, and calculated to give needless offence; and his remedy was, that if the law of nations had been infringed, diplomatic relations should be established, and an ambassador sent (as the noble Lord near him had said), cap in hand, to ask the Pope to withdraw his brief, which they were told by every Catholic who had spoken, could not be withdrawn; and at the same time telling the Court of Rome that unlike the ease of any other insult offered to this country, if the document was not withdrawn, no legislation could be adopted on the subject, and no coercive measure would be resorted to if necessary to enforce redress. But, returning to the analogy drawn by the right hon. and learned Member for Plymouth between the Catholic Church and the Wesleyan body, and the Free Church of Scotland, the hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely overlooked the essential distinction inherent in the Catholic Church, which separated it from all other denominations of religion of a domestic character. There were points of essential difference between the present case and the others to which it had been compared; namely, that this organisation of the Roman Catholic body in this country had proceeded from a foreign Power, and from a foreign Power without any communication had with the Sovereign authority of this realm, and without its sanction, approval, or consent; and again from a foreign Power which, though asserting itself to be a spiritual Power, had, from its origin to the present day, been characterised by a mixture of temporal and spiritual jurisdiction, of which itself claimed to be the sole judge; a power, moreover, which asserted claims of universal dominion, without any recognition of any other authority, civil or religious, than its own. Let the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the extracts from the Papal documents which had been read by the noble Lord the Member for Bath, and the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst. He asked whether any man, accustomed to weigh the language of public and official documents, could read those passages without seeing in them a claim to temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction? The hon. and learned Member for Oldham said, no doubt the Pope was a foreigner, but that was a mere accident, to be rejected from the consideration of the question. But it was impossible so to reject it. He regarded it as being the very essence of the question. It was because this was the act of a foreign Power, that it was impossible for Parliament to leave that point out of its consideration—a foreign Power which took upon itself to lay down rules and regulations for the guidance of British subjects—to parcel out the country into dioceses, and to appoint persons to govern them by delegation from the See of Rome, without any communication with the Government of the country. It was that which roused in the people of this country the same spirit which had actuated our forefathers, both in Catholic times and subsequently from the Reformation to the present day, and induced them jealously to guard its independence against foreign aggression. The hon. Member for Plymouth said that this was not contrary to the law of nations, and he supported this proposition by reference to the example of Belgium, as a country where the Church was free, and the bishops were appointed to territorial sees by the Pope, without the sanction of the State; but it had been pointed out by other speakers that in this case, these powers were exercised by the Pope, not against the State, not without the consent of the State, but under direct contract with, and therefore by authority of the State. Were they to be told that because a particular State chose to waive a right possessed in common with other nations, this was to deprive any other State of the right of insisting on the law in defence of its internal liberty and constitution? He said that in no country in Europe did Papal interference take place without its being either in accordance with the State, or in virtue of a direct law, authorising such interference. In no one of all the instances adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford with so much research and ability, of proposals made in former times to introduce the hierarchy into this country in compliance with the desires of the Roman Catholic body, was any such proposal entertained by the Pope without reference to the British Government, and without some communication of the intention being made to the Government, and their opinion being ascertained with regard to it. The instance quoted in the time of James II. merely went to this—that the King declared that "this measure of substituting diocesan bishops for vicars-apostolic would not be disagreeable to him, provided that the bishop was a moderate man, and not unacceptable to the king." It did not require all the learning and information of the right hon. Gentleman to know that this was a project which had been entertained and discussed over and over again; but there had always been a resistance on the part of this country to admit that change except on conditions which the Government of this country held to be compatible with the security of its liberties, and which would have raised barriers against the encroachments of the See of Rome, and the establishment of an uncontrolled authority within this realm. This brought him to notice a remarkable error made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon in dealing with the same subject. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in 1812, Sir John Cox Hippisley, being in the confidence of the English Roman Catholics, and also in communication with members of His Majesty's Government, proposed with their consent at Rome, the very change now made by the establishment of diocesan bishops; and he inferred from that, that after the desire then expressed by the British Government, it would be monstrous to suppose that the Pope could conceive that any injury or insult would be committed by him in appointing bishops of his own proper authority. The facts of the case were most incorrectly stated by the right hon. Gentleman, owing, he presumed, to his not having had recourse to correct sources of information. Even if such a proposal had actually been made in concert with the British Government, it would have afforded no precedent whatever for what had now been done. He thought he had found the germ of the right hon. Baronet's statement in the pamphlet of Lord St. Germans, in which allusion was made to a speech of Sir John Hippisley. The right hon. Baronet acknowledged that to be the foundation of his statement. Well, this speech of Sir John Hippisley's was made on a Motion of Mr. Grattan for a Committee of the whole House on the subject of the Roman Catholic claims. Sir John Hippisley, in addressing the House, adverted not to any recent communication he had had with Rome, but to communications which had passed several years before, in concert with Members of the Government, of which traces may be found in the Castlereagh correspondence. But was it proposed to concede the unlimited right of appointing bishops to dioceses without reference to the wishes of the British Government? So for from that Sir John Hippisley expressly declared his belief that "securities might be obtained against the dangers of concession to the wishes of the petitioners, provided that such measures of concomitant legislation were adopted, as did, in fact, constitute a material feature of the State policy of every other nation, and were, in fact, not less in the view of our Catholic ancestors than they ought to be in our own at the present hour." He then enumerated at considerable length the restraints provided in other European countries against the encroachments of Rome, observing that France, whilst the Pope was actually within her power, had provided securities as effectual as if he was still in the plenitude of his sway. Sir John Hippisley distinctly pointed to the veto as the sole condition on which the establishment of a Roman Catholic episcopate could be permitted; and the proposal he had made to Rome on the part of the British Government was, that the change should be made, accompanied with that important condition, the failure of which led, he believed, to its withdrawal by the British Government. [1 Hansard, xxii. 762; xxiii. 701.1 Were they to be told, because this proposition had been made, that at the distance of half a century the Pope was justified in adopting that part of it which might suit his own purposes, omitting altogether that part on which the British Government had insisted, or that the Government were to be bound to submit to this interference without having obtained for themselves sufficient guarantees? And that, too, when they were told by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, that the time might come, when, circumstances being favourable, the Church of Rome, unchanged and unchangeable, might renew the Marian persecutions. The Government were charged with departing from the Act of 1829; but the Act of l829, whilst giving full civil equality to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, provided securities, which were not held to be inconsistent with its principle. There as nothing unreasonable in supposing that the men who for a long series of years advocated the principles of that measure, never conceived that they thereby precluded themselves from asserting the freedom of their Sovereign and the independence of their country against those encroachments of the See of Rome which the whole history of the kingdom showed that our ancestors had jealously guarded against. As to the alleged interference with civil and religious liberty, he, like the Attorney General, challenged his opponents to show him one single point in which the Roman Catholics would by this Bill be debarred from the fullest and freest exercise of their religion: until that challenge was answered, he was fully entitled to repel the imputation that this measure was contrary to the principles of religious freedom. With regard to its effect on Ireland, it had been alleged that the first clause contained within itself the provisions of the others which had been omitted. In consequence of certain statements made, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), as to the practical effect of parts of the latter clauses, the Government had determined that they had used their best endeavours to remove from the Bill everything that could trench on the established usages and prescriptive rights of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty in Ireland. But if the opinion quoted by the hon. Member for Dundalk were correct, it would not be denied that that opinion applied equally to the 24th clause of the Act of 1829 as it did to the Bill before the House. If that opinion, contrary as it appeared to the decisions of the Irish Courts, both of law and equity, turned out to be well founded, and the decisions of those courts were reversed, he thought the Roman Catholics of Ireland would have little reason to thank the hon. Member for Dundalk for the zeal with which he had attempted to found an argument against the Bill upon the first clause, after the ground of his former arguments had been cut away by the proposed withdrawal of the other clauses of the Bill. It had been said that the feeling which existed in the country was originated by interested Churchmen, and that it was merely one of rivalry between the two Churches. The right hon. Member for Ripon said that the truth had now come out, and that he believed that the cause of offence was not that the authority of the Sovereign was impugned, or that there had been any aggression on the independence of the country, but that the real grievance was that the archiepiscopal throne of a Roman Catholic archbishop had been set up at Westminster side by side with that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) also said that this measure was merely introduced to placate the wounded pride of a few titled ecclesiastics. He would not retort that the whole scheme comprised in the Pope's rescript had been devised to gratify the pride of a few titled ecclesiastics. But if the hon. Gentleman intended to imply that the feeling in the country had been got up by Churchmen anxious to maintain their position against a formidable enemy, he was speaking in direct contradiction to the facts. He need only to refer to the paper which was moved for by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, showing the various bodies, civil as well as religious, who had addressed the Crown against this aggression on the temporal authority of the Queen. The fact was that this aggression had been felt as a national insult, and complaints had been addressed to the Throne not only by Churchmen, but by members of the Church of Scotland, of the Free Church of Scotland, by the Wesleyans, the Congregationalists, the Baptists, and the three denominations of Dissenters, representing, in fact, the vast majority of the Protestant inhabitants of the realm. The course taken by the Pope had been felt by them, not as Churchmen, with regard to their own immediate interests, nor as Protestant Dissenters, from fear for that Protestantism which they held in common with the Church of England, but as Englishmen. They were animated by the same spirit which induced their forefathers to oppose barriers to the temporal encroachments of the Court of Rome; barriers which we were bound to maintain, but which might exist without abridging in the slightest degree the full exercise of religious liberty. The right hon. Member for Ripon had charged his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) with having by his present course compromised his advocacy of the principles of civil and religious liberty on the hustings of the city of London. But the city of London had expressed its own opinion on the subject, and in the exercise of its ancient privilege, had carried up to the Throne addresses by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, the Common Council, and the City Lieutenancy, in which, while declaring their uncompromising advocacy of civil and religious liberty, they prayed that measures should he taken to resist the encroachment of a foreign Power. These territorial titles, which were said to be only an empty name, and against which it was contended that it was idle to legislate, were the badges and symbols of a jurisdiction which was claimed to be exercised by the sole and undivided authority of the Court of Rome; and what he asked the House was, that they should place the brand of illegality on those badges and emblems. Let them reject this Bill (according to the advice of the right hon. Member for Ripon), without any alternative being offered to them but complete acquiesence and indifference, and they might depend upon it that such a course would be followed by fresh aggression from the Court of Rome, which would believe, as had been asserted by Cardinal Wiseman, that the feeling expressed by the country was only a temporary popular effervescence, and would quote such an acquiescence on the part of the House as a proof that the Commons of England were indifferent to the honour of the Crown and the independence of the nation. That House might by such a course not only encourage fresh acts of aggression on the part of Rome, but they might do more, they might excite throughout the country that great religious war which the hon. Member for Liverpool was so eager to rush into, but which he (Sir G. Grey) deprecated; let them reject this measure, and they might have a demand from the country which they would not be able to resist for a measure with provisions much more stringent, and penalties far more severe. An appeal had been made to our national character. We had derived from our ancestors the character of being zealous for the independence of the country. Let us, then, in the same spirit, hand down that character unimpaired to our posterity. He believed that by so doing, by supporting this Bill by a large and decisive majority, they would best consult the honour of the Sovereign, the independence of the country, and the cause of civil and religious liberty.

The EARL OF ARUNDEL AND SURREY

rose, but was informed by Mr. Speaker that he was not entitled to reply.

MR. S. HERBERT

said: As the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary has alluded to me on a matter of fact, perhaps the House will allow me to state the facts. The right hon. Baronet read two documents for which he held me responsible. I objected to the first, and never heard of the second until the right hon. Baronet read it. I suppose it had been adopted after I left the meeting. In moving the resolution which the right hon. Baronet read, and which I stand to, I pointed out to the meeting what I have attempted to point out to the House, that the way to meet spiritual aggressions is not by Acts of Parliament; and I argued as strongly as I could argue, that penal enactments would fail, and that it was by spiritual resistance on the part of those opposed to Popery that this aggression must be met.

MR. P. HOWARD

, amidst loud cries of "Divide!" protested against the imputation that the Roman Catholics of England and of the sister country claimed by the institution of the hierarchy any temporal authority. Still more decidedly did he protest against those expressions of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was about to impose the "brand" of illegal conduct upon a third of the inhabitants of the country.

SIR G. GREY

explained that he had not said one word about placing a brand upon one-third of his fellow-subjects. He said, that these titles were the badges and emblems of jurisdiction claimed and exercised in virtue of the undivided and sole authority of the See of Rome; and he asked the House, by passing that Bill, to put a brand of illegality upon those badges and emblems.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 438; Noes 95: Majority 343.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, Sir T. N. Burroughes, H. N.
Acland, Sir T. D. Busfeild, W.
Adair, H. E. Buxton, Sir E. N.
Adair, R. A. S. Cabbell, B. B.
Adderley, C. B. Calvert, F.
Alcock, T. Campbell, hon. W. F.
Anson, hon. Col. Carew, W. H. P.
Anson, Visct. Carter, J. B.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Caulfleld, J. M.
Archdall, Capt. M. Cavendish, hon. C. C.
Arkwright, G. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Ashley, Lord Cavendish, W. G.
Bagge, W. Cayley, E. S.
Bagot, hon. W. Chandos, Marq. of
Bagshaw, J. Chaplin, W. J.
Bailey, J. Chichester, Lord J. L.
Baillie, H. J. Child, S.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Childers, J. W.
Baird, J. Christopher, R. A.
Baldock, E. H. Christy, S.
Baldwin, C. B. Clay, J.
Bankes, G. Clay, Sir W.
Baring, H. B. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T. Clifford, H. M.
Baring, T. Clive, hon. R. H.
Barnard, E. G. Clive, H. B.
Barrington, Visct. Cobbold, J. C.
Barrow, W. H. Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.
Bass, M. T. Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.
Bateson, T. Cocks, T.S.
Beckett, W. Cole, hon. H. A.
Bell, J. Coles, H. B.
Benbow, J. Collins, W.
Bennett, P. Compton, H. C.
Beresford, W. Conolly, T.
Berkeley, Adm. Copeland, Ald.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Berkeley, hon. G. F. Cotton, hon. W. H. S.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Cowan, C.
Bernal, R. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Bernard, Visct. Craig, Sir W. G.
Birch, Sir T. B. Cubitt, W.
Blackstone, W. S. Curteis, H. M.
Blair, S. Dalrymple, Capt.
Blakemore, R. Damer, hon. Col.
Blandford, Marq. of Dashwood, Sir G. H.
Boldero, H. G. Davies, D. A. S.
Booker, T. W. Deedes, W.
Booth, Sir R. G. Denison, E.
Bowles, Adm. D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.
Boyle, hon. Col. Disraeli, B.
Bramston, T. W. Divett, E.
Bremridge, R. Dod, J. W.
Brisco, M. Dodd, G.
Broadley, H. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Broadwood, H. Douro, Marq. of
Brocklehurst, J. Drumlanrig, Visct.
Brockman, E. D. Drummond, H.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.
Brotherton, J. Duke, Sir J.
Brown, H. Duncan, Visct.
Bruce, C. L. C. Duncan, G.
Bruen, Col. Duncombe, hon. A.
Buck, L. W. Duncombe, hon. O.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Duncuft, J.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Dundas, Adm.
Bunbury, W. M. Dundas, G.
Bunbury, E. H. Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.
Burleigh, Lord DuPre, C. G.
East, Sir J. B. Headlam, T. E.
Ebrington, Visct. Heald, J.
Edwards, H. Heathcoat, J.
Egerton, W. T. Heneage, G. H. W.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Heneage, E.
Ellice, E. Henley, J. W.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Emlyn, Visct. Hervey, Lord A.
Enfield, Visct. Heywood, J.
Estcourt, J. B. B. Hildyard, R. C.
Euston, Earl of Hildyard, T. B. T.
Evans, Sir De L. Hindley, C.
Evans, J. Hodges, T. L.
Evans, W. Hodges, T. T.
Evelyn, W. J. Hodgson, W. N.
Ewart, W. Hollond, R.
Farnham, E. B. Hope, H. T.
Farrer, J. Hornby, J.
Fellowes, E. Horsman, E.
Fergus, J. Hotham, Lord
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Filmer, Sir E. Howard, hon. E. G. G.
Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. J. W. Hudson, G.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Humphery, Ald.
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Foley, J. H. H. Jackson, W.
Forbes, W. Jermyn, Earl
Fordyce, A. D. Jocelyn, Visct.
Forester, hon. G. C. W. Johnstone, Sir J.
Forster, M. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Freestun, Col. Jones, Capt.
Frewen, C. H. Ker, R.
Fuller, E. A. Kershaw, J.
Galwey, Sir W. P. King, hon. J. P. L.
Galway, Visct. Knightley, Sir C.
Gaskell, J. M. Knox, Col.
Gilpin, R. T. Knox, hon. W. S.
Glyn, G. C. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Goddard, A. L. Lacy, H. C.
Gooch, E. S. Langston, J. H.
Gordon, Adm. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Gore, W. O. Lawley, hon. B. R.
Gore, W. R. O. Legh, G. C.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Lemon, Sir C.
Granby, Marq. of Lennard, T. B.
Greenall, G. Lennox, Lord A. G.
Greene, T. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Grenfell, C. W. Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Lewis, G. C.
Grey, R. W. Lewisham, Visct.
Grogan, E. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Littleton, hon. E. R.
Guernsey, Lord Lockhart, A. E.
Guest, Sir J. Lockhart, W.
Gwyn, H. Long, W.
Hale, R. B. Lopes, Sir R.
Halford, Sir H. Loveden, P.
Hall, Sir B. Lowther, hon. Col.
Hall, Col. Lowther, H.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Hamilton, G. A. Mackenzie, W. F.
Hamilton, J. H. Mackie, J.
Hamilton, Lord C. Mackinnon, W. A.
Hanmer, Sir J. Macnaghten, Sir E.
Harcourt, G. G. M'Gregor, J.
Hardcastle, J. A. M'Taggart, Sir J.
Harris, hon. Capt. Mahon, Visct.
Harris, R. Mandeville, Visct.
Hastie, A. Mangles, R. D.
Hastie, A. Manners, Lord C. S.
Hatchell, rt. hon. J. Manners, Lord G.
Hawes, B. Manners, Lord J.
Hayes, Sir E. March, Earl of
Marshall, J. G. Sandars, J.
Marshall, W. Scott, hon. F.
Martin, C. W. Scrope, G. P.
Masterman, J. Seaham, Visct.
Matheson, A. Seymer, H. K.
Matheson, Sir J. Seymour, Lord
Matheson, Col. Shafto, R. D.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Sheridan, R. B.
Meux, Sir H. Sibthorp, Col.
Miles, P. W. S. Sidney, Ald.
Milner, W. M. E. Slaney, R. A.
Milnes, R. M. Smith, J. A.
Milton, Visct. Smith, M. T.
Mitchell, T. A. Smyth, J. G.
Moffatt, G. Smollett, A.
Morgan, O. Somerset, Capt.
Morison, Sir W. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Morris, D. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Spooner, R.
Mulgrave, Earl of Stafford, A.
Mullings, J. R. Stanford, J, F.
Mundy, W. Stanley, E.
Muntz, G. F. Stanley, hon. E. H.
Neeld, J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Neeld, J. Stanton, W. H.
Newdegate, C. N. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Noel, hon. G. J. Stephenson, R.
Ogle, S. C. H. Stuart, Lord J.
Ord, W. Stuart, H.
Ossulston, Lord Stuart, J.
Owen, Sir J. Sturt, H. G.
Packe, C. W. Sutton, J. H. M.
Paget, Lord A. Thesiger, Sir F.
Paget, Lord C. Thicknesse, R. A.
Pakington, Sir. J. Thompson, Col.
Palmer, R. Thompson, Ald.
Palmerston, Visct. Thornely, T.
Parker, J. Tollemache, J.
Patten, J. W. Townley, R. G.
Peel, Sir R. Townshend, Capt.
Peel, Col. Traill, G.
Pelham, hon. D. A. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Pennant, hon. Col. Trollope, Sir J.
Perfect, R. Tufnell, rt. hon. H.
Peto, S. M. Turner, G. J.
Pigot, Sir R. Tyler, Sir G.
Pigott, F. Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Plowden, W. H. C. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Plumptre, J. P. Verner, Sir W.
Powlett, Lord W. Verney, Sir H.
Price, Sir R. Vesey, hon. T.
Prinsep, H. T. Villiers, Visct.
Pugh, D. Villiers, hon. C.
Rawdon, Col. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Reid, Col. Waddington, D.
Rendlesham, Lord Waddington, H. S.
Renton, J. C. Wakley, T.
Repton, G. W. J. Walpole, S. H.
Ricardo, J. L. Walter, J.
Ricardo, O. Watkins, Col. L.
Rice, E. R. Wawn, J. T.
Rich, H. Wellesley, Lord C.
Richards, R. West, F. R.
Robartes, T. J. A. Westhead, J. P. B.
Romilly, Col. Wigram, L. T.
Romilly, Sir J. Williams, J.
Rufford, F. Williams, W.
Rumbold, C. E. Williamson, Sir H.
Rushout, Capt. Willoughby, Sir H.
Russell, Lord J. Wilson, J.
Russell, hon. E. S. Wilson, M.
Russell, F. C. H. Wodehouse, E.
Sandars, G. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Wood, W. P. Wyvill, M.
Worcester, Marq. of Yorke, hon. E. T.
Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Wyld, J. TELLERS.
Wynn, H. W. W. Hayter, W. G.
Wynn, Sir W. W. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C. Maher, N. V.
Armstrong, Sir A. Meagher, T.
Armstrong, R. B. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Barron, Sir H. W. Monsell, W.
Blake, M. J. Moore, G. H.
Blewitt, R. J. Mowatt, F.
Bright, J. Mure, Col.
Burke, Sir T. J. Norreys, Lord
Butler, P. S. Nugent, Sir P.
Cardwell, E. O'Brien, J.
Castlereagh, Visct. O'Brien, Sir T.
Charteris, hon. F. O'Connell, J.
Clements, hon. C. S. O'Connell, M.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. O'Connell, M. J.
Corbally, M. E. O'Connor, F.
Crawford, W. S. O'Flaherty, A.
Currie, H. Osborne, R.
Currie, R. Palmer, R.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Devereux, J. T. Peel, F.
Ellis, J. Portal, M.
Fagan, W. Power, Dr.
Fagan, J. Power, N.
Fortescue, C. Roche, E. B.
Fox, R. M. Sadleir, J.
Fox, W. J. Scholefield, W.
French, F. Scully, F.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Seymour, H. D.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E. Simeon, J.
Goold, W. Smith, J. B.
Grace, O. D. J. Smythe, hon. G.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Somers, J. P.
Grattan, H. Strickland, Sir G.
Greene, J. Sullivan, M.
Henry, A. Talbot, J. H.
Herbert, H. A. Tancred, H. W.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Tenison, E. K.
Heyworth, L. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Higgins, G. G. O. Towneley, J.
Hobhouse, T. B. Urquhart, D.
Hope, A. Vane, Lord H.
Howard, P. H. Wall, C. B.
Hume, J. Walmsley, Sir J.
Hutchins, E. J. Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Keating, R. Young, Sir J.
Keogh, W.
Kildare, Marq. of TELLERS.
Lawless, hon. C. Arundel and Surrey, Earl of
M'Cullagh, W. T.
Magan, W. H Reynolds, J.

Main Question put, and agreed to: Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

The House adjourned at half after Three o'clock till Thursday.