On this page

• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    286 Z%t &**& £?+ [Saturday ,

  • 

    PARLIAMENT OF THE WEEK. PAPAL AGGRESSION...

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    286 Z%T &**& £?+ [Saturday ,

    286 Z % t &**& £ ? + [ Saturday ,

    Parliament Of The Week. Papal Aggression...

    PARLIAMENT OF THE WEEK . PAPAL AGGRESSION—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE . The debate of Monday presented nothing remain able , except that the House did » ot b * eak up till two hours after midnight . The speakers in favour of tfe * hill were—Mr . Monckton Milnes , Mf . Grantxey Berkeley , Mr . F . II . Berkeley , and ; Lord Castlebsagh . Those against it were—Mn Fagan , Mr »

    Smythe , Mr . Sadleir , Sir J . Young , Mr . Beresford Horc , and Mr . Grattan . The most notable speech of the evening was that of Mr . Smythe , who described the measure as ' a sham bill of sham pains and sham penalties against a sham aggression . " Afcer alluding to the Whig alliance with the Catholic p * rty for political purposes , he went on to condemn the manner in which they sought to repudiate " the bride of their not illegitimate and certainly not impolitic bigamy " : —

    " In a far different spirit—in the spirit of a wise and fir-seeing and courageous statesman—the Secretary of State for the Colonies had not hesitated to accord to Catholic prelates in our colonies those titles which would have been accorded to them by Mr . Pitt ; and , knowing that we governed St . Lucia by French laws , and Berbice by Dutch laws , aud Trinidad by Spanish laws , had seen no reason why we should not give Catholic bishops to Malta and to our Catholic fellow-subjects in the British colonies . Why , then , should not Catholic laws and Catholic bishops be given to the Catholics in Ireland , and Catholic laws and Catholic bishops to Catholics in England ? ( Hear . ) What had the Pope really done ? He had accorded certain territorial titles , but with no territorial faculties . The title of ' Archbishop of Westminster ' involved no more territorial faculties than did the title of « King of Cyprus' borne by the King of Sardinia , or the

    title of ' King of Jerusalem' borne by the King of the Two Sicilies . It involved no more territorial faculties than did the title of ' King of France , ' which was borne by three Electors of Hanover constituted Kings of England , or than did the title of ' King of England' when borne by King James III ., Charles III ., and Henry IX . Although the Legislature of England proscribed those princes , they were still , in their own words , ' Dei gratia , non voluntate hominum , ' Kings of England to the consciences cf some at least among their subjects . They might legislate as they pleased , and proscribe Dr . Wise man as they would , yet still ' Dei gratia , non voluntate hominum , ' he would be still primate of all England in the consciences at least of many of the Catholic subjects of this realm . ( Hear , hear . ) The principle was one which defied legislation , because it was ' in foro conscientise , ' between man and God . It reminded him of the old doggrel of the Jacobites : —

    " ' God bless the King " , God bless the riith's defender , God bless—there is no harm in blessing- —the Pretender ; Rut who is that , aud who the Kin ; , ' . God bless us all , —that ' s quite another tiling 1 . "' It was absu rd to talk , in these days , of Papal power as anything very dangerous in a Protestant country . " Men had only not to believe , and the Pope ' s jurisdiction , ceased and determined . " Alluding to the voluntaryism of the Church of Rome , he said : — " The Pope had given the most signal , the most startling , the most transcendent range to the voluntary principle . For the first time in history , by the side of un Established Church , he had connected the highest grades of the Komish hierarchy with the voluntary principle .

    ( ' Hear , ' and ckeers . ) He remembered to have read in one of the debates of the Long Parliament , in the speech of the Puritan Member for Kent , Sir Edward Dering , of a mediaeval legend , which stated that when Christianity iirst exchanged the persecution of the Human Ernperor lor the smiles , and the favours , and the moneys of Con-Kt . intine , the voice of an angel was heard crying and wailing in trie air , — ' Hodle in eccleniam venennm infundituf . ' From this mediaeval myth Rome had extracted and deduced a profound political truth . What was it thut . rendered her so powerful—more powerful than at atny time he had read of in the annals of the church — ho powerful that 10 , 000 bayonets had been sent to her Bupport by the universal Hiiftrage of France , at the cost of the universal mi / frage of France—{ cheers ) ;—that , day by day , voluntary restitutions of church property with I lulling place in Spnin ; that in one Kecond , by one stroke

    of J ' rince Soli war zeuberg ' H p « 'ii , the rutioiuiliMtiu bigotry and the JoKcphist spoliations of a hundred years had been annulled ? One sole fact , —that , bit by bit , and year after year , Hhe had learned to withdraw herself from State connexion and erasiian domination . { Hear , hear . ) Thus Hhe had bei'ii enabled to present to the world the unique Bpcctucle of u pauper hierarchy by the hiili ; of a largely salaried episcopate—(/ tear , hear ) ;— that pauper hierur chy recognized and pi-iycd for by univcrnil Christendom - —that salaried cpiiteop . iie not recognized , and not . prayed for , and not sympathized in , <> nt . ol the Hritihh Krnpire . At the head of that , hierarchy nhe had Hem . n pnnre of the ehun h -one who , l , ord l ' owis Htaied in one of Inn ¦ admirable Hpeerhe . s , would taker picctdeuce even of the JVince t *<» nM > rf in every Court , ut the Continent of Kurope ; but « he had t > ent him with the wallet of the mciidi-< nnt beneath the roben of the cardinal , drixMident on the

    uIidh of thone who uhosm to believe . ( Cheers . ) Jtnuic hud in thin , ut leant , gone far beyond ( ho ( Juvummciit ol Knglund in the , npirit of that principle , which decreed that none , Hlwuld puy for u faith other than his own . She Jiad Hung far down a warning truth into a posterity which would not be ungrateful lor the boon . (( Cheers ) ( She had gone further j she had read in England the flint baiiH of those free impthiln between liberty and faithbetween modern liberty nnd ancient faith , which , in his conscience he believed , in no remote age would yet regenerate mankind , (( ' / tears . )"

    The House had . become very tired of the discussion by midnight , and when Mr . A . B . Hope rose to speak he was interrupted by loud calls for a division . He persisted , however , in finishing his protest against the bill , and then Mr . Horhotjse moved the adjournment . Lord John Russell tried to persuade the House to come to a division ; twenty-six members had spoken against the bill and twenty-two for it . They might debate the question for six dayslongei without eliciting any new argument . Mr . Moore thought it wotddbe injustice to Ireland if the debate were terminated so soon . They had not occupied above five or six hours of the debate , while some fourteen or sixteen hours had been taken up by the speakers on the other side . Mr . Scully reminded Lord John that there were some thirty-five or forty Catholic members in the House , only seven of whom had spoken yet . Sir George Grey said that no less than fourteen Irish members had addressed the

    House , and the time they had occupied was eleven hours and a half . Mr . M . O'Connell wished to speak on the question , but would not address a jaded audience at that late hour . The Earl of Arundel and Surrey agreed with those who wished to bring the debate to a close as speedily as possible . But only consider that out of thirty-seven Catholics in the House only seven had yet spoken . Lord John wondered when the discussion would clo 9 e if all the other thirty Catholic members should insist upon speaking . The House having divided on the question of adjournment , the motion was negatived by 414 against 64 ; but as it was evident that the opposition would be renewed , Lord John gave way .

    I he opponents of the bill had the larger share of the speaking on Tuesday evening . The debate was opened by Mr , Hobhouse , who thought the Church of England was in much greater danger from infidelity than from the Church of Rome . " These debates would give great advantage to scoffers and infidels , enabling them , to point to the scandals of the Church . " The right course for Government to take with the Romish hierarchy wae to ignore its existence . Mr . Portal , the new Member for Hants , fully shared in the general feeling of indignation at the Papal aggression , but , as he believed the bill to be a mockery and delusion , unworthy of the age , of

    the wisdom of Parliament , and of the national dignity , he would oppose the further progress of a measure which was just large enough to satisfy the Protestants of England . Mr . John O'Connell praised the speech of Sir James Graham , as reflecting the highest honour upon him . "It was full of hope , not so much perhaps for Ireland as for England . " He defended the Synod of Thurles , in their opposition to the colleges . " It was the duty of the Roman Catholic prelates to denounce them . The law of the land had no right to say that the children of Catholics should be educated in infidelity . " Mr . Lawless , although a Protestant , followed on the same

    side . He accused Lord John of having introduced the bill under fahe pretences . He had said that the word " mummeries , " in his letter to the Bishop of Durham , referred to the Puseyites . Why then not introduce some measure to stop the progress ofPuseyism ? Mr . Muntz stuck to the aggression point , that was the only question of any value . The Pope had made " a premeditated and most impudent attack on the Protestant religion of this country , '* which ought to be repelled ; and , therefore , he would vote for the bill . Mr . Scully warned Lord John ,

    that the cry of " the Church in danger , " had always brought evil . Mr . Hume , as u Protestant and an Englishman , gave his hearty opposition to the bill . Jle considered the introduction of wuch a measure as by far the most unfortunate occurrence which had taken place during the long period of his parliamentary experience . The only point on which he differed from the eloquent , brilliant , and powerful speech of Sir James ( irubum was , in not thinking that tliere bad been any act of aggression on the part of the P > pe : <—

    '' If they passed ( his bill , how were they to govern Ireland ? What wast lie rcittton that the right honourable gentleman , the member for Windsor , who wan nlao the Attonicy-Uenerul for Ireland , had not risen in his place before now , and explained the probable opt ration of the bill in that , country ?— [ Thin observation wns received ' with the moHt vehement , cries of « Hear , hear' from the liiHh nveiab . iH , who take a most teirible retribution on the iriHb AttoriM'y- ( , Vn < rul for the anxiety wlji .-h he invaiiiildy evince * to avoid taking any puit in irinh debates , by receiving every aHumon to his name with hIiouIh of dernioii . ] --ltvvuHlhebo » indei duiyol therii / ht hoiKJurnble gentleman , the Atlnrney -Ueneral for Ireland to explain the provision ,, of this ( till » H they would « fieri that country , of wliie . li he w : ih the Hr . t law ofhYer ( Ihumtersof lause frothe ! inunuMsoj frothe

    app m Irish mrmlwrs \ I ! ... « . I applause m Irish members ) 1 huv « . h 1 m . nn , yeye , " oontinu ,., lM , , lluiiie , "lie is Hiuii . ir below me , a ,, « U want to know why be ha . s „„( . taken part , in turn ,-bate nnd why he > , »« not oflieially explained to he I 1 ,,. ih « . Ins views up ,, n thi . i queNtion ? - [ In uttering thcBe w *( 1 h Mr Hume , to n . ukei u . n ^ lfinore improve " IlMi . M ' T VV " 7 " l '" " y K . » Ueni , u , who wuh Hitting J .. N below him on i | , « Tr . w . s . wy bench , im < l thundered !„„ rr . ovmg « pp ,.,, | into I . Jh rdnmbcing ear 1 he member ... question muid . » ly wak ,, ! I 4 H , r < mi u , ? ' and , urinng up hm head in the direc . i . m of Mr . Hume reyea ,,, the InituroH , not of the Hucc « HH » r of . Lord Plunkett , but of Mr . JJcrniil . Thin mistake evoked a peal of

    merriment * whidk gr « w foster and more furious when th Attorney-General emerged from a position of obscurit where he had bieea overshadowed by Sir George Gr and proceeded to i » ake inquiries of those around him ^ though he were wholly unconscious of what had bee going on . ]—Ho ( Mr . Hume ) believed it was the dutv of the right honourable gentleman to address the House on this question , and to relieve their anxiety with respect t the probable operation of the bill in Ireland , and it was to be hoped he would do so . —[ Renewed merriment in

    the midst of which Mr . Hatchell collapsed into hie usual state of reverie , and , drawing his hat over his brows appeared to have delivered himself to that deliHmJ languor which occasionally supervenes on tremendous physical exertions . ]—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 . ( Loud cheers . )"

    Sir F . Thesiger spoke at great length against the bill , which he characterized as ' puerile and absurd " but declared his intention to vote for tlie second reading , 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 no legislation at all . Mr . Gladstone , while admitting the existence of serious intestine ' divisions in the Church of England protested against any attempt to meet the spiritual dangers of the church by temporal legislation of a penal character . Those dangers might be met by a spirit of temporal wisdom ; but he did not believe that they could be cured by remedies which had been tried before , under circumstances a thousand times more favourable than the present , and had utterly and entirely failed . If

    the Pope , or the Koman Catholic bishops should interfere with our temporal affairs in such a manner as would not be permitted to any other body of religionists , Parliament would be bound to interpose . But till they did overstep the line Parliament had no right to interfere , or to deny them any right or liberty which it gave to other bodies of Christians . He fully agreed with tho > e who considered the language used in the Pope's brief , and the archbishop ' s pastoral relating to the appointment of the hierarchy as " preposterously inflated , vain , boastful , and improper , and distinctly meriting complaint and reprobation in the strongest terms . " But the Roman Catholic body was not responsible for that language , and therefore it was unjust to make them suffer . We must look to the substance of the act , and by that stand or fall . If the law of nations had been

    broken , nothing was more disparaging to the country than to proceed only by act of Parliament imposing a penalty . There was nothing to prevent our representing the wrong to the party who had done it , and demanding redress . He then proceeded to point out various deficiencies and anomalies in the bill , which ) he said , did not defend the territorial rights of the Crown ; and with respect to Komish aggression , there was a preliminary question , —whether the rescript of the Pope had a temporal character . That the Roman Catholics recognized the Pope as their spiritual head did not justify the withholding one jot ofreligious freedom . It wan not enough that bishops

    were appointed by a foreign authority ; it must be shown that they are not spiritual officers , but appointed for temporal purposes . If the appointment of bishops per se was a spiritual not a temporal act , why interfere with the Roman Catholic bishops ? if it waa per se a temporal act , why exempt the Scotch bishops ? Then as regards Ireland , it appeared from the Attorney-General ' s speech that , after all the nourishes about the Queen s supremacy , the unity of the two countries , and the impartial application of the same law to both , Ministers did not intend to carry out the same principle in Ireland as in England . Hut tho whole measure waa a bundlo of

    inconsistencies . Ho went on to show that the question relating to the establishment of a Roman Catholic diocesun episcopacy wus one upon which the Church of Jtome had long boon divided , ltlvor ainc « the Reformation there had been two parties in the Komau Catholic body . The bulk of the laity and of the Hecular clergy had followed one line of policy—the regular orders , especially the Jesuits and the Court of j { oni <» , had followed another . The Moderato

    party , whenever they had had breathing time , had Mtru ^ 'gled for this very measure of a diooeaim t'piscopacy . The extreme party represented l > y 1 ' cardinals around the . Pupul throne , and the Jesuits , hud been nil along struggling agninat it . For the lust three hundred years the iiuihh of the laity hml been engaged in necking for ( his measure , while they had hetu oppowod b y the Ult . rainoninimts . The < 'Mr . abliKliiue . iit . of the local principle would g ' to every elans in the Roman Catholic Churehcertitin iixed

    and intelligible lightM . "They were t «» ld thitt the high 1 ' iipril intcrcHt wart gaining ground in the Church of Home , that the- » yst « 'iii wan becoming more closely knit , itH dincipline more and more rigid , and that , the wcope allowed to freedom wan fiotn year to y < ar diminiHhed . He prrtmmcd « " »' . f " uh Parliament hud i » right to interfere at all , they would yvinh , if tluy could , to utop thut baneful tendency ; but it wiih liin dec p conviction that , the count * they weie now ( "king , mo fur from tending ( o Htop that courttc of uffuiiH , hud u tendency directly the reverHC . ( ' Hear' anil Cheers . ) They were throwing buck the Roman CulholicH upon the , Pope —(/«?«» - )—they were annoying them with u little

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), March 29, 1851, page 2, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_29031851/page/2/