some who were candidates for the opposite | tion of the hon. and learned Member for seats; would they venture to form any Youghal to have risen; and, indeed, he Government upon the principle of Church- had risen for the purpose of endeavouring of-Englandism? They knew they would to answer that most able and, he believed, not. Then let him remind them, that if unanswerable speech. It had been concluthere was one thing which more than an- sively demonstrated by the conjoint efforts other had tended to bring the proceedings of the two hon. and learned Members (Mr. of that House into contempt, it was that Law and Mr. Walpole), that, as far as remen would, for certain purposes, maintain lated to the first part of the Bill then on opinions, or at least use arguments, which the table of the House, of the eight stathey knew they could not maintain on the tutes proposed to be repealed, six, at least, opposite benches. For these reasons, and had already been taken out of the Statutefor many others, he held it to be very de- book; but such was the vigour and detersirable that the House should go into Com- mination of the Hon. and learned Member mittee on the Bill. for Youghal, like a certain hero after a famous battle, that he was not content with seeing their dead bodies before him thrice slain, but he must still further endeavour to destroy them. Would any man deny that six of the Acts proposed to be repealed by this Bill had been specifically repealed by statute a few years ago? While the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Anstey) came forward with the pretext of removing Acts which were quite obsolete, and which were mere incumbrances on the Statute-book, and were the works of the dark ages, as they were once called in that House-his real intention was by this Bill to destroy such securities as Parliament provided, by a large majority, for maintaining the ascendancy of Protestantism and the constitution of England in 1829. As was stated in the numerously signed petition from Bristol which he had that day had the honour of presenting, as well as that presented by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, this measure was brought forward ostensibly for the purpose of removing grievances which existed only in name, but substantially for the purpose of demolishing those securities which we still enjoyed for the maintenance of our Protestant constitution, But, as had been said, with great force, by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, the time itself was ill-omened and inopportune for any such measures. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not admit that any time was opportune for the proposal of such measures; but he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that in the present state, not only of England, but of Europe generally, it was a most unfortunate time for the removal of any securities which remained to Protestantism in this or any other country. Why, what had been said to be the intention of the Pope in reference to this country? And had it ever been contradicted?

SIR R. H. INGLIS questioned whether the hon. Member for West Surrey had read the Bill. Could that hon. Member find any one single, he would not say clause or provision, but line in the Bill, which made especial reference to place, office, or distinction of any kind whatever? And yet the hon. Member, with an authority which he did not deny was due to his talents, but which he denied was due to him in any other respect, pronounced, with that oracular tone and manner which so eminently distinguished him, that, whether it were wrung from their justice or their fears, neither the Roman Catholic nor the Dissenter ought to rest satisfied until he had obtained perfect religious equality with the Protestants of these realms. But this Bill did not seek in the slightest manner to confer any privilege upon the Dissenter-it merely sought to give more freedom to the Church of Rome in this country. He would sit down instantly to enable his hon. Friend to correct him if he were under a misapprehension; but he had given no sign of any such mistake on his part; and he (Sir R. H. Inglis) contended that, whether the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge might or might not have been appropriately delivered against the Bill of 1829, it was a speech which also, and directly, applied to the Bill now before the House. The speech of his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey had nothing whatever to do with the subject of the present discussion. That hon. Gentleman rose at a time when the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) intended to address the House, as by the forms of the House he could not have answered the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst on the day on which it was delivered. He knew that it was the intenVOL. XCVI. Third

Series f

2 A

Had it ever been denied, up to the present | and which might God long preserve! His moment, that the Pope was attempting to hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey do, in this Protestant realm of England, would not, as he (Sir R. Inglis) had already what he ventured to say fearlessly, and said, find a single line in this Bill which without hazard of contradiction from any had special reference to any place, office, representative of Her Majesty's Govern- or dignity, which was withheld from memment then in the House, not even from the bers of the Church of Rome by any existright hon. Gentleman who sat beside him ing statute, and which the present Bill (Mr. Sheil), the Pope would not dare to at- proposed either to restore, or place afresh tempt--he used the words most delibe- in their power. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) rately-in that kingdom nearest to our knew that there were members of the own the kingdom of France. He sin- communion of the Church of Rome who, cerely believed that the Pope would no publicly and privately, for the last eighteen more dare to create a bishopric in France or nineteen years he would not say forwithout the consent of the Sovereign, than getful of any obligations into which they he dared to raise an army to attack the had entered, but certainly with a disregard King of France bodily in his own dominions. of the spirit of the stipulations made on He knew full well that he could no more their behalf by those who introduced the venture to do that in Austria-he stated Act of Roman Catholic Emancipation in all this deliberately, and without hazard of 1829—had striven and were striving to contradiction-the Pope would not dare to procure the repeal of all the securities do that in any part of Roman Catholic Eu- which the Act of 1829 provided, and to obrope. But the Pope relied upon that ill-tain all those places which the law at that omened conjunction of the members of his own Church with the great body of Liberals and Dissenters and Latitudinarians in England-the conjoint influence of whose power might prevent the Government of the day from taking any measures to resist his attempts. It appeared, then, as his statement had not been contradicted, that it was the intention of the Court of Rome to subdivide Her Majesty's European dominions, as well as those beyond sea, into bishoprics, without the consent of the Crown of England; and he contended, in the language of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, whose petition he had the honour of presenting in the course of the present Session, that it was high time that England should, instead of repealing its own just and necessary law against Popish aggression, vindicate its own independency, by calling on the Bishop of Rome to withdraw his usurpations and invasions upon the dignity of the English Crown, the integrity of the English constitution, and the liberties of the English people. He fully concurred in the sentiments of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. He hoped that the time had arrived when the Bishop of Rome-that was the legal language of the Church of England, which the distinguished individuals forming the Dean and Chapter of Westminster were not ashamed to use-should be called upon to withdraw this system of aggrandisement, aggression, and usurpation, and to leave unbroken those barriers which had still preserved to us our Protestantism,

time kept from them. He knew what their defence was, because, after very little experience in that House, any one might know the tactics of those with whom they associated. They did not originate the measures themselves, and therefore they said they were not injuring the Protestant Church. The measures originated with members of the Protestant Church, and then Roman Catholic Members, whatever might have been the understanding, the declarations, or the spirit of the stipulations of 1829, would say, in defence of their vote for such measures." A member of the Protestant Church has brought forward this Bill; and I feel myself justified in voting for it, because a Protestant Member would not have introduced it if he thought it was calculated to diminish the security of Protestantism." Incidentally he might notice that a measure had been introduced elsewhere, of which he would not say more at present, because he wished to abstain, not only from introducing extraneous matter, but also to refrain from expressing an opinion, until he was directly called upon to do so: but that Bill, he perceived, did give, not the Christian title which our Christian Church and laws, for generations, and for centuries almost, had applied, viz., Bishop of Rome, but that quasi heathen title of Pontifex Maximus, or Supreme Pontiff, to the head of the Roman Catholic Church. [Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not discuss a Bill which is before the other House of Parliament.] begged to apologise to the right hon. Gen

He

tleman and to the House. The first of the | hood of the noble Earl's residence; so that clauses of the Bill of the hon. and learned at the very moment that the House was Member provided that a Roman Catholic asked by Roman Catholics to grant them ecclesiastic, or member of a religious order concessions and indulgences, and a relaxaof that Church, should be allowed to per- tion of the existing law, they were actually form religious services and wear the acting in violation of that law; and they habits of his order in any place where a knew that in so doing it was almost an imcongregation might be assembled for re- possibility to convict them, for, in the case ligious service according to the rites of of monks and other religious orders, their the Roman Catholic Church, or in a pri- names were not known: it might be that vate house where there were not more than the violator of the law was an Italian priest, five persons assembled besides those of his who, as soon as as he heard of an intention household. Now he remembered to have on the part of the Government to prosecute heard the late Mr. O'Connell use language him, could escape to his native country beto the following effect:-" No one can be fore any proceedings could be taken against more ready than I to oppose any clause him. He only mentioned that for the purwhich would legalise any procession of the pose of showing the spirit of aggression on Host, or expose the adorable sacrament to the part of Rome-an aggression which insult." He knew it was a very different was insatiable, and which would, if that thing to carry the Host in procession be- House relented its firm purpose, or refused fore a mixed multitude and in the streets to throw out this Bill by the large maof a populous city, and to expose a crucifix jority of last year, destroy year by year or other objects of religious use and worship Protestantism in the same manner as the in the same streets in another service; but framers of this Bill had endeavoured as far he apprehended that neither the one nor as they could to destroy even the profesthe other could at this moment be legally sion of Christianity in this country. He adopted in England; and he was still more meant so far as that profession was concertain that not one could be adopted which nected with the supreme Legislature of could more offend public decency and the this country; and here, at least, he might public peace. And yet, though it was dis- say, without any breach of order, that the tinctly prohibited by the Emancipation Act Bill to which his hon. and learned Friend that funeral processions, with Roman Ca- (Mr. Law) had alluded-the Bill for the tholic emblems, should be permitted to admission of Jews into the Legislaturepass through the streets or public high- proceeded upon the postulatum that reways of this country, he had great reason ligion was a thing indifferent to the people to believe, not merely that an attempt had and constitution of this country. The Bill been made to solemnise the service of the now before the House proposed further to Church of Rome over the dead, in an Eng- legalise associations of persons bound tolish Protestant churchyard, but that a gether by religious vows, although it was procession had been seen, extending for one of the special objects of the Act of some distance on a turnpike-road, and in 1829 to fetter, if not altogether to prohibit, the immediate neighbourhood of a noble such associations. The Bill made special Lord, whom he named in this instance that reference to the Society of Jesus, or the he might honour him-he referred to the Jesuits. Now, when he recollected that Earl of Shrewsbury, who, when he was in- the wisdom and sagacity of every nation formed of it, prohibited it. He stated that in Christendom in the course of the last he mentioned that to the honour of the 250 years had successively expelled the noble Earl, though he believed that testi- members of that order from their remony from a Protestant would be regarded spective dominions, he could not admit the as anything but flattering to the character truthfulness or accuracy of an expression of that noble Earl, and would only entitle his used by the late Mr. O'Connell, that "the Lordship to the renewed obloquy of those virtues of the Jesuits were their crimes." who were incapable of appreciating integrity He (Sir R. H. Inglis) hardly knew wheand truthfulness. He begged pardon, how- ther that was an extemporary verse made ever, of the noble Earl for presuming to expressly for the occasion, or whether introduce his name into these discussions. it emanated originally from some other He held in his hand a letter, duly authen- authority; but he denied that the asserticated, which stated that there had been tion was founded on truth. How could recently several processions such as that he give assent to it when he found that which had taken place in the neighbour- there was not a country in Europe, whe

'Denique ut ipsi ecclesiæ cunctæ Catholicæ omnino unanimes conformesque simus siquid quod oculis nostris apparet album nigrum illa esse deffinierit debemus quod nigrum sit pronun

ciare."

He would not make a more direct reference to any one not then present, but it might be in the recollection of the House that there was a certain hon. Member whom no enemy had ever accused of being a Jesuit, but who, nevertheless, had said that he would undertake to vote black white, and white black. The use that would be made of that incident by the advocates of the present measure, would be to represent that it was not necessary for a man to be a Jesuit to hold the doctrine that black might be made white, and white black, according as expediency required; and that, therefore, no such great danger would follow on the admission of the Jesuits. But

ther Roman Catholic or Protestant, from | was sorry that a distinguished Member of which the Jesuits had not been expelled? that House was not in his place to hear it They were banished from France in 1594, read; but his absence should not prevent from England in 1604, from Venice in him from giving the House the benefit of 1606, from Portugal in 1759, from Spain the extract. The passage he was about in 1767, from Naples, Malta, and Parma to quote was taken from the Exercitia in 1768, and from Paraguay (where if in Spiritualia (Rome, 1548)—a work the any country on the face of the earth they value of which would be acknowledged ought, one would suppose, to have been even by the hon. and learned Gentleman recommended by the practical results of the Member for Youghal. It ran thus:their teachings) in 1733. Finally, they were suppressed by the Pope himself in 1773. And yet that was the society which it was now proposed to reinvite into England, and whose residence amongst the English people was to be made a matter of praise and eulogy, rather than of censure and injury. Every one of the countries which he had enumerated as kingdoms from which the Jesuits had been banished was Roman Catholic, with the exception of England, and nevertheless every one of them had found the existence of the Jesuits intolerable. He could not but think that they had so found it with too much reason for themselves. Their doctrines had been so frequently exposed in that House-on a memorable occasion eighteen years ago, and on many occasions since that period, and were so well known to hon. Members, through their acquaintance with general literature, that it was unneces-in answer to that argument, he (Sir R. sary for him to expend much observation on the question now; but there was one objection that he was anxious to deal with. He might be told that although he might succeed in excluding the corporeal presence of the Jesuits, it was wholly out of his power to exclude their books and their principles; but to this argument no weight was to be attached. Was he to be told that because he could not exclude the book, he was not on that account lawfully and perseveringly to endeavour to exclude the commentator? Bad as their books were, they were made still worse by their viva voce commentaries; and of two evils it was better to have the book by itself, than the book with the commentator. If he could not exclude the Secreta Monita, was he not, at least, bound to do his best to keep out the ingenious logician whose living commentaries on that pernicious book would make its doctrines yet more injurious? While on the subject of the doctrines of the Jesuits, he would take occasion to say that those doctrines were very remarkably illustrated by one passage from a very famous book of theirs to which he recently had had access. He

Inglis) would venture to say that the hon. Member in question, whose opinion, however valuable on a question of finance, or of public taste, was not, perhaps, equally so in a matter of morals. The statement as made by the hon. Member was harmless, except in so far as the hon. Member himself might be concerned; but it was far different when such a doctrine was laid down by a great religious community such as the Church of Rome, and was explained and enforced by the most powerful of all the religious orders belonging to that Church. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal had said that, at this moment, every Christian Brother was liable to transportation to Norfolk Island. [Mr. ANSTEY: Hear!] Now that was a serious charge; and he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman, whilst replying to the masterly exposure of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) would not forget to address himself to that subject. With regard to the first point, the oath of supremacy, he begged to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman, as had been done in several instances by his predecessor, Mr. Watson, quoted

pire were animated by the same spirit as a certain noble Member of the English aristocracy who was accustomed to take a prominent part in the discussions of this kind. Twenty years ago he expressed a wish that all the Catholics of the kingdom had been led by the Cliffords, and now he could wish that they were all led by the Howards. He could not better conclude than by adopting the language of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, in a letter addressed by that noble personage to his Friend, Mr. Plumptre:

"Would to God that we were all united in one faith, and could devote all our time and all our energies to His service, and in His service to the of taking part in endless disputations; and if we benefit of His creatures our fellow-men, instead

cannot be members of the same holy faith, would to God that we could concede full liberty to all, yielding in a generous spirit to the dictates of charity and justice, interpreting each other's feelings with brotherly love, seeking to put the best construction on each other's actions, and palliating each other's faults!"

cases for the purpose of showing the justice of relieving Roman Catholics from the penalties attaching to non-compliance with the Act of Supremacy. Now, if there were grievances existing which affected Roman Catholics and Dissenters, he wished to ask the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond) why he had not proposed some provision in this Bill which might also apply to the case of the Dissenter? But with regard to the members of the Church of England, he warned the House to take care that they repealed no provisions of the Act of Supremacy. Do not let it be said that any member of the Church of England wished on any account to deny the right of the Queen to any portion of authority which by law belonged to her over that Church. He knew that what he was saying would be taken in a different sense to that in which he used those words; but they had learnt enough in the course of the last six or seven years to be aware that there were many who anxiously desired to sever the connexion between the Church and the State. To that connexion he was firmly attachedbelieving that in any country the State gained more from religion than religion gained from the State-and believing that in our own country it was most essential, particularly in the mixed multitudes who were now permitted to legislate for that Church, that the Church should have the protection of that State with which it was allied. But though he believed that the Church should be inseparably united with the State, he knew not how Roman Catholics, Dissenters, and Protestants indifferent to the Church of England's interest, in that House, might hereafter affect that union; and he, therefore, protested against any diminution of the securities which the Church of England enjoyed. His hon. Friend near him wished to know against what the Church of England was to be MR. ANSTEY would not attempt to protected. He would tell him. The Church follow the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) of England was to be protected against in his observations with respect to the her own sons, who, in her own pulpits, connexion between Church and State might preach doctrine contrary to her own.-first of all, because the object of this Any measure which could at all tend to take away any of those securities now provided for the maintenance of the union between Church and State, must of necessity be deeply detrimental to the best interests of both, and to any such measure he should therefore feel himself called upon to offer the most strenuous opposition. In conclusion, he would only say that he could wish that all the Roman Catholics of the em

It had ever been his (Sir R. Inglis's) anxious desire to conform his life to these admirable precepts; and he could not forbear saying that he felt happy that on the present occasion an opportunity should have arisen for quoting from one, of whom he would only say that his words, actions, and demeanour in that House had been in uniform and undeviating accordance with the feelings which he had so felicitously expressed. He had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

MR. H. DRUMMOND, in reference to the hon. Baronet's remarks as to his not having proposed a clause in favour of Dissenters, explained that it would be impossible, as the measure was intituled "A Bill for the further repeal of enactments inflicting pains and penalties upon Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects on account of their religion."

Bill was in nowise to destroy that connexion; and, secondly, because he thought the internal management of the Church of England, her doctrines or her discipline, were not the points under the consideration of the House. It was true that this measure did not profess to give Protestant Dissenters relief from such enactments as related equally to Roman Catholics and Dissenters; but in framing this Bill so as