MR. BRIGHT said, that he knew this | the same position as the Established Church; was not a very favourable time to prolong but the members of the Roman Catholic a discussion, and that he would not keep Church stood in the same position, when them from their dinners more than two or they asked for the consideration of the three minutes. If he recollected aright, House in matters affecting themselves, as when the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) did the members of the Established Church. spoke on a former occasion, on this Bill, he He thought the noble Lord (Lord John stated that the Government had discovered Russell) ought not, by a mere majority, to that the Bill, as originally introduced, did override the view of the Roman Catholic affect the spiritualities of the Roman Catho- Members of that House, and of a large lic Church or its Prelates, and that, having portion of the population of the country; been informed of this, he consulted the law but that he ought to be even more careful officers of the Crown, and they having con- when he was taking away the rights now firmed this opinion, he proposed to with- enjoyed by the Roman Catholics, than if he draw some of its clauses. So far, then, was doing something to affect the power they had the noble Lord owning himself of the dominant Established Church. He that the Bill had come within the practice would not argue the point legally; but if of the House upon that point. So far as there was any doubt on the question--and regarded the Church of England, he (Mr. he thought the speech of his right hon. Bright) should say that this Bill distinctly Colleague (Mr. M. Gibson) showed that had reference to the Church of England, there were doubts-then the noble Lord inasmuch as it declared in the preamble ought to refer it to a Select Committee, that the reason for the Bill was the taking and so satisfy the Roman Catholics throughof certain ecclesiastical titles by Roman out the United Kingdom that when quesCatholic Prelates, said to be inconsistent tions affecting them were before Parlia with the rights referred to in the preamble. ment, the House proceeded with as much Then the object of the Bill was to strength- caution as if it were a question affecting en the Prelates of the Established Church the Established Church. in the dignities and offices which they now enjoyed; and, if this were so, he was at a loss to understand why the rule applied in so many previous cases should not be applied in this. The House was asked to do something, which something was felt to be a great grievance by many millions of the population of the United Kingdom. It might be a necessary thing to do, or it might not. The House might be driven by an absolute necessity to pass it; but hon. Members could not conceal from themselves the fact that from 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 persons had pronounced most clearly and decisively against the Bill. Then a member of the Church which would be injuriously affected by the Bill asked them to consider whether they were not proceeding too rapidly, and whether they had not passed over a certain step which the Established Church insisted upon for itself, for the purpose of defend ing its own position-whether in attempting to pass a Bill, which was felt to be a grievance by 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 of the inhabitants of the United Kingdomthey were not proceeding more rapidly, in a manner less fair and cautious, than they should proceed if the proposition were to aggrieve the members of the Church as established by law? He was not going to say the Roman Catholic Church stood in

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned.' The House divided:-Ayes 53; Noes 179: Majority 126.

Question again proposed.

MR. LAWLESS moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. LAWLESS: Then I move the adjournment of the House. Though not a Catholic Member, he was an Irish Member, and felt as much as a Catholic Member, that Ministerial majorities in that House, however large, ought not to treat with disrespect the feelings of their Catho lic fellow-subjects. The majority upon this occasion did not seem disposed to listen to the justice of the case at all. [Cheers.] Yes, and that cheer showed him how right was his opinion. He therefore moved that this House do now adjourn.

MR. GRATTAN seconded the Motion. He thought the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was pursuing a wrong course by refusing to comply with the proposition of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) a proposition which, if carried, would satisfy the Roman Catholics; and he now appealed to the good sense and good feel

ing of the noble Lord, and begged of him to consent to the adjournment of the House.

their political tactics. If the noble Lord would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, they would not object-at least he (Mr. Reynolds) would not-to pro

MR. KEOGH considered that the noble Lord himself admitted it was desirable that a Select Committee should be appointed to examine precedents. There was another conclusive reason, on account of the discrepancy which existed between the arguments of those who maintained that the Standing Orders did not apply to this question, Mr. Speaker having assigned as his reason that the Bill did not touch the spiritualities of the Roman Catholic religion; while the hon. and learned Solicitor General urged as his reason that the Bill did not apply at all to the Roman Catholic religion.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL could assure the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Law-ceed with the debate pari passu with the less) that the majority on the division inquiry by the Committee. They were which had just been come to had not been justified in dividing as often as they thought composed entirely, as he seemed to sup- proper. pose, of Ministerialists; for there were in the lobby some of the strongest opponents of Ministers-men who could not be moved by him to vote otherwise than as their consciences dictated. The question had been fairly discussed. He had never seen the House more attentive than it was to the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and some other Members. The House having decided that they would not adjourn the debate, it was now proposed that the House should adjourn, in order to get rid of the Bill. This proposition made him suspect that that resolution which hon. Members told him they had come to some time ago-not to make any factious opposition to the Bill-a resolution he very much admired-he was afraid, however, they had faltered in that resolution now. The House had heard the opinions of Mr. Speaker and some competent Members; and were matters now to be reversed because there were some Roman Catholics in Ireland who might suppose that they had a better opinion of order than Mr. Speaker?

SIR GEORGE GREY said, his noble Friend did not propose the appointment of a Select Committee; he only said that was a question which ought to be separately argued. But, practically, the House had decided the question, and he therefore hoped the House would allow them to make some progress with the Bill.

MR. ANSTEY hoped that the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Lawless) would not press the House to a division on his Motion. His (Mr. Anstey's) determination was to separate himself from the acts of some hon. Members from Ireland, especially when they assumed to speak in his name. He opposed the Bill, but he was no party to the species of opposition which was now set up. His reasons for opposing it were not common to him and the Irish Members, and the course which was now being pursued by those Members was not Was it

MR. REYNOLDS said, he had not been excited to offer any factious opposition by his vote at this particular stage. [A laugh.] That laugh induced him to state that he had no factious intention with reference to his proceedings on this occasion. His object was to afford time to the House to agree to the views of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gib-likely to conciliate or to succeed. son). His opinion was more than confirmed that this was a grave subject, worthy of additional consideration. He was not impeaching the decision or opinions of Mr. Speaker on points of order when he said that there was considerable difference of opinion on this subject, that very high authorities differed on it, and that the Irish Members were not guilty of factious conduct in asking for consideration on so important a question. He was not aware of any such resolution as the noble Lord had stated. The hands of the Irish Members were perfectly clear, and he was afraid they would disappoint the noble Lord in

right, for the sake of gaining the small advantage of a few hours, days, or even weeks, to force the House and cripple the freedom of its deliberations, by including, under the name of religion and religious purposes, subjects which, according to the Bill, were altogether foreign to the question of religion? He called upon the Irish Members boldly to avow that their object was not to settle this question, but to get rid of it by a side wind.

MR. MOORE must compliment the hon. and learned Member for Youghal on his conversion, for he, after having spent a whole Session in obstructing all Bills, even

his own Bill, was now in favour of progression. He (Mr. Moore) presumed that the fact of the hon. and learned Member holding his seat in that House contrary to the remonstrances of his constituency, had produced the sudden change in his views. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), had both promised to vote for a Committee. The Irish Members only wanted to have the Committee. They had no desire to obstruct.

The House divided:-Ayes 36; Noes 145 Majority 109.

the authority of the Pope in the appointment of bishops, less loyal and faithful subjects to Her Majesty Queen Victoriawhom God long preserve? He contended that they were neither less loyal nor less faithful, and that if the appointment of bishops to territorial jurisdiction were a violation of the rights of the Crown, they had been long living under the established violation of those rights in Ireland. What had been the state of the Roman Catholics in England? They had been governed by vicars-apostolica system which hon. Gentleman on the Treasury benches were ready to praise, when contrasting it with

Motion made, and Question put, "That the new system. But whose vicars were the House do now adjourn.' Question again proposed.

they? The vicars of the Pope-episcopal curates exercising delegated jurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome-the actual Bishop of the Roman Catholics in England. Instead of directly governing his spiritual subjects in England through vicars-apos

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL wished to explain his reasons for offering continued and determined opposition to the Bill. The broad principle which he laid down was this that the act of the Pope in appoint-tolic, the spiritual government was now ing bishops with territorial jurisdiction was to be administered by the appointees of not such an act as ought to be met by the Pope, and therefore there was less prelegislation. He entirely denied that the tence for saying the change was a violation allegiance of Her Majesty's Roman Ca- of Her Majesty's prerogative. He was tholic subjects was weakened or abated fully pursuaded that when the heats, and one jot or iota by that act of the Pope. clouds, and mists of prejudice had passed What was the position of the Roman Ca- away, future generations of Englishmen tholics in Ireland up to that period? Since would look back on all that had taken place the passing of the Catholic Emancipation with self-humiliation, and would thank God Act there had been on the Statute-book that they were not as prejudiced as their a nominal prohibition of the assumption of ancestors, just as we could look back on certain ecclesiastical titles in Ireland; but the prejudices of our ancestors ninety-nine notwithstanding that prohibition, those years ago, when they complained that the titles were assumed in instruments binding change of style had deprived them of eleven under the canon law of the Roman Catholic days. The present attempt at legislation Church. Whether legal or illegal, it was was the result of an undefined and undealso well known that there had existed in finable wish of many persons in the country Ireland a body of Roman Catholic prelates, that Parliament should do something. He acting in and for certain dioceses in Ire- thought hon. Gentlemen had mistaken the land, most of whom were called by the public mind of England, in representing same style and designation as the existing that it was a Church of England movement. titles of bishops of the Established Church. He did not look upon it in that light. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church the contrary, he saw that not only had were appointed by the power of the Pope of large bodies of Protestestant Dissenters Rome. Hitherto that power had been the joined in the call of this House to inter general power of confirmation of local elec-fere, but amongst Churchmen many had tions; that was not a necessary practice; but taken part in this movement who were whether they were appointed by confirma- far from anxious to promote the increased tion of domestic election or not, the Roman endowment of their own Church, but would Catholics of Ireland had acknowledged the rather see that endowment reduced; and authority of those bishops. That was the many who were decidedly unfavourable to law since he came to man's estate; under the extension of power to the clerical porthat law they had lived, and were still liv- tion of the Established Church. Taking ing, and that had been the practice, inde-into consideration that class of Churchmen, pendent of the act of the Pope at the close of last autumn. Were the Roman Catholics of Ireland, because they acknowledged Mr. Moore

On

the large bodies of Dissenters, and those who were in a state of suspension between Church and dissent, who had joined in re

quiring legislative interference, he was | Catholic would refuse to assist in supporting driven to the conclusion that public opinion the law; but, in the meantime, he would was eminently a Protestant opinion, con- let the spiritual authority defend itself. He curring very much with that portion of the confessed he was extremely sorry to see Established Church which considered that sectarian animosities again revived by this her Protestant character was rather more measure. Attached as he was to the Rovital than her ecclesiastical character. God man Catholic Church, he could assure the forbid that he should condemn them for House that, instead of contention and strife, that feeling! but he did condemn them for it would be much more consoling to him to endeavouring to terminate a spiritual con- see Protestants and Catholics engaged in test by the secular arm-to cut the Gor- the nobler and truly Christian rivalry of dian knot by the sword of the State-to endeavouring to extend the knowledge of obtain the interference of Parliament with the divine law and the practice of the "the development" of Church principles. divine precepts among the mass of the It was preposterous by any legislative act population, who, in many of the rural to put a stop to the unconstrained flow of and civic districts, were, he regretted to religious opinions; it was a freedom as es- say, in a state of practical ignorance, alsential to the enjoyment of perfect liberty most worse than Atheism. He feared that as any other of those franchises which the the result of the present measure would be British public so highly esteemed. He con- to prevent this desirable extension of Chrisfessed he had been surprised to find a tian instruction among the mass of the nobleman in the other House of Parliament, people; that it would tend to make the a nobleman, too, not the least enlightened lukewarm still more lukewarm, and the nor the least tolerant in that assembly, ar- scoffer still more active against Christiguing in favour of legislative interference anity. With these views of the dangerous in order to check the spread of Romanist tendency of the measure, he would at this, opinions. Now, the idea of asking the and at every other stage at which a legitiParliament of Great Britain in this the mate division could be taken on its merits, 19th century to interfere to check the free give the Bill his firm and decided opposicurrent of public opinion, was as preposter- tion. ous as the idea of attempting to stop the flow of the tides, and afforded a melancholy evidence of the incorrect notion which was too generally entertained of the power and duties of the Legislature. He would take the liberty of warning that body of Churchmen whom he would not call Puseyites, but who were known to have a great respect for episcopal ordination and apostolical succession, and of whom he had always understood that the hon. and learned Solicitor General was one of the brightest ornaments, that if they encouraged the British public to appeal to Parliament to put down Romanist opinions, they might find it speedily followed up by a similar appeal to put down their own. But he might be asked, if he would not consent to legislation, what would he do? To this he would reply, that if the Church of England was assailed, let her defend herself; if any of the other Protestant bodies were assailed, let them defend themselves. If the Pope's nominees should claim jurisdiction, power, or pre-eminence over any of them, lay or clerical-if they should claim any temporal or civil authority over any of Her Majesty's subjects whatever, it would then be time enough for the law to interfere; and he was sure that no loyal Roman

MR. URQUHART said, there were many points with which he was precluded from dealing when he addressed the House on a previous occasion. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had since opened up one branch of the question, which appeared to him (Mr. Urquhart) of the greatest importance, and on which he would now enter. The noble Lord had stated that the motive and object of the Papal Government had been, not a religious, but a political one. He stated that the Government of the Pope had been moved by hostile feelings to this country, and was the agent of a conspiracy which had for its object to prevent the extension of liberal and constitutional government, and had instigated an act which should set England in a flame. Though the noble Lord would not have admitted, if he (Mr. Urquhart) had called on him to do so, that the aggression rested on diplomatic grounds, he had now admitted that for him. The noble Lord's statement was founded on evidence. The Earl of Shrewsbury had said, "There are, I believe, parties in Rome the declared enemies of England, who are all-powerful in the councils of the Roman Court." Her Majesty's representative in Ireland, in a very remarkable letter, wrote thus: "What

can I, or any unprejudiced spectator, think, | The right hon. and learned Master of the except that spiritual jurisdiction is not the Rolls, in reply to the suggestion to treat the object in view, but rather political hosti- aggression as a contravention of internality?" When the question first arose, tional right, said, "How can you go to Rome the natural instinct of this country pointed and complain, seeing that you brought in a to that issue, and it was at once seen that Bill for establishing Diplomatic Relations, the source was political, and that political and introduced a clause which offended the source opened by England herself. The Pope, and vitiated the whole action of the leading journal, on the first announcemeasure?" That Bill no ways prevented ment of the event on the 22nd October, England from having her representatives expressed itself in these terms:at Rome if she chose. The noble Viscount

"So that while one of the effects of Lord Minto's unfortunate journey was to promote the revolution in Italy, the other was to promote the re-establishment of the Romish hierarchy in England.

at the head of the Foreign Department did not adopt the same argument; but he said it was "too late" to interfere in that way. Before the House decided on the question, For a Scotch nobleman, who is neither a Jacobin they ought to remember that they had

While

nor a bigot, it must be confessed that these results are strange instances of diplomatic ability." three Ministers of the Crown presenting The hon. Member for the University of Ox-which could not be reconciled. That fact opinions on the subject under discussion, ford (Sir Robert Inglis), endeavouring to alone was, he thought, an evidence of the explain, or finding it impossible to explain, want of the sagacity of the Government in the conduct of the noble Lord, said, "It must dealing with the question. In the course evidently be influenced by causes which are of his address to the House in bringing not obvious to the world;" and in the course forward his Resolution, he had referred to of his speech, he went the length to say the erroneous statements of the noble Lord it was a diplomatic question, which could (Lord John Russell) respecting the viola only have been treated in the first instance tion of the law of nations: the noble Lord by negotiation, and, in case of negotiation had contradicted him without adducing fact failing, finally by a resort to arms. The or argument for the contradiction he gave. resort to arms had been treated as ridicu- What he (Mr. Urquhart) had asked the lous; but if it was an unwarrantable ag; noble Lord to say was, whether in the act gression on international right, it would of the Pope there was anything contrary have been an honourable quarrel, and the to treaty or the law of nations, and whether nation would have upheld the Government either had been infringed; but the noble in so dealing with it, though the noble Lord had not given an answer. Lord (Lord John Russell) would have co- then the noble Lord persisted groundlessly vered himself with disgrace had he ap-in representing that act as a violation of pealed to international rights, after the the law of nations, with equal pertinacity encouragement he had offered to the Papal he had excluded that means of action which See.. The noble Lord the Member for alone could be had recourse to in dealing Bath (Lord Ashley) began in the same with an international matter; he would not strain, speaking with indignation of the negotiate to prevent the injury, but he priest or potentate, "dependent on foreign would legislate to meet a foreign aggresbayonets for the very breath he drew, sion, and then legislate so as to strike inyet placed in a position to startle this nocent persons, and leave unscathed the country from its propriety: he, too, at- horrible conspirators against England and tributed the act of the Pope to political against Europe, whose existence he had motives. So also the right hon. Gentle- detected, and whose evil purposes he had man the Member for the University of proclaimed. He had done his best to reCambridge (Mr. Goulburn), who had used sist the Bill for establishing Diplomatic Relations with Rome, because he was satisfied that wherever British diplomacy opposed the interests of England, it would be unjust, and the independence of that country where it was brought to bear, endangered; and during that long discussion he had several times, and at considerable length, passed in review the conduct of the Papal Government during the late war, showing how great the services it had ren

these remarkable words :

"He had heard it said that the act of the Pope was in revenge for some supposed misconduct of the noble Lord opposite for having lent himself to some proceedings in Rome which had led to the expulsion of the Pope. He could not believe such a statement, although he had heard it from authorities which on any other matter he should not be disposed to doubt; but if the Pope made ecclesiastical arrangements a means of resenting a political injury, they were clearly not necessary for religious objects."

Mr. Urquhart