§ MR. SPOONERwished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) a question of which he had given notice. In a printed paper, purporting to be a report of a speech delivered by Mr. Sadleir, one of the Lords of the Treasury, at the recent election for Carlow, it was stated that "the noble Lord had proffered a political refutation of the course which he had taken with respect to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which that distinguished nobleman had had the manliness to proffer." He wished to ask whether the noble Lord had proffered such a refutation of the principles of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill? On the same authority, Mr. Sadleir was likewise reported to 39 have said that "the principle of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill had been deliberately and openly abandoned." He wished to ask the noble Lord whether that statement was correct—whether that principle had been abandoned? And he should also be glad if the noble Lord would kindly state whether he still retained the opinion that the aggression of the Pope, which induced the Government to bring forward the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, was "insolent and insidious," and fully justified that measure.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that on reading the report in the newspapers, he did not consider it necessary to ask Mr. Sadleir for any explanation, thinking that a statement so obviously incorrect could not have been made by that Gentleman. However, Mr. Sadleir had yesterday voluntarily informed him that the report was entirely inaccurate, and that certain words had been attributed to him by the Tory journals which he had never used. Mr. Sadleir went on to state that what he did say was in effect that the composition of the Government gave the Irish people a guarantee that the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill would not be made use of to infringe the religious liberties of the Roman Catholic people—that the acceptance of office by Lord John Russell, in conjunction with those who had opposed the principle of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, ought to be regarded as a refutation of a false charge that he would use the Act to the injury of the Catholics of the United Kingdom. This was the statement of what Mr. Sadleir did say, and it was a statement of which he (Lord John Russell) had no reason to complain. He ought, however, to say that it was never intended, nor would it have been permitted, while Lord Clarendon was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Sir George Grey was Home Secretary, and he and his Colleagues in the Cabinet held office, that the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill should have been used against the religious liberties of the Roman Catholics. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask whether he still thought that the aggression of the Pope, which induced him to bring forward the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, was "insolent and insidious," and fully justified the introduction of that measure? He certainly thought the hon. Gentleman had taken a very considerable latitude in his inquiries, when he proposed a question with respect to his thoughts. But as the hon. Gentleman was so curious on the sub- 40 ject, he would take the opportunity of stating that he still thought the same as he did two years ago.