§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished, before the adjournment of the House, to refer to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Dr. Wiseman had been examined before a Committee of the House in his capacity of Cardinal. It was not the fact that Dr. Wiseman had attended the Committee in the capacity stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Newdegate) had referred to the proceedings of the Committee on Catholic Charities, and from these had found that the case was very different to what had been stated. It was quite true that Dr. Wiseman, when he became Cardinal, was summoned before the Committee, but he declined to appear. It was, however, eventually determined to summon him, and the result was embodied in the Minutes of the proceedings of the Committee, of date the 30th of June, 1851, as follows:—
Motion made, and Question proposed (Mr. Anstey), that Dr. Wiseman be summoned to attend and to be examined before this Committee." "Amendment (Mr. Keogh), that the word 'Dr.' be omitted, in order to insert, instead thereof, the word 'Cardinal.' Question put that the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Question. The Committee divided—Ayes, 9.—Mr. Anstey, Mr. Heald, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Hardeastle, Mr. Shafto Adair, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Drummond, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Hutt.Noes, 1.—Mr. Keogh.The Committee re-assembled on the 17th of July, 1851, and the Members present were—Mr. Headlam, Lord John Manners, Mr. Shafto Adair, Sir R. H. Inglis, Lord Henry Vane, Mr. Anstey, Mr. H. Drummond, Mr. Hardcastle, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Hutt; Mr. Thomas Emerson Headlam in the chair. The Right Rev. Nicholas Wiseman, D.D., called in and examined.It would therefore be seen that no precedent existed, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, on the contrary, the Committee decided by 9 to 1 against allowing Dr. Wiseman to appear before them in his capacity of Cardinal. He was afterwards examined as the Right Rev. Dr. Wiseman, and was only recognised as a Bishop and Doctor of Divinity. He (Mr. Newdegate) hoped the House would excuse him for having made this statement. He had only done so because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had inferred that there was some precedent 1002 which might sanction what was done the other day at the banquet given by the Lord Mayor of Dublin. The real facts, however, went to prove that the precedent of the House was exactly diverse to the proceedings at Dublin.