The Press. — London, England, 1858-11-27 00:00:00

THE PItE S S, NOVEMBER 27, 1858. 1146 between the institutions and usages of France and of her nearest neighbour and closest ally, but a voice of warning, and a defiance, not from home, not from the men of intellect in France seeking emancipation, but from abroad, from the Hierarchy of Rome, angry and alarmed for the security of their position. Now, if this be a correct view of the relative positions of the French Government and of M. DE MONTALEMBERT, it cannot be denied, how ever much we may find fault with the retribu tion, that the former have received much provo cation, and that M. DE MONTALEMBERT does not stand truly quite so clear of offence and inten tion to offend as many suppose. Are we not right ? Consider for a moment the events which at the time when the pamphlet was pub lished were in progress, and the attitude which the Emperor of the FRENCH and a considerable party among the nation had assumed in the face of Rome and her Policy. The young MORTARA had been kidnapped, and doctrines had been enunciated with regard to the rights of the Papal Church and the power of Her Pope which had compelled the interference of the Emperor of the FRENCH, and had induced in a Government journal the republication of the famous letter to EDGAR NEY in 1848, in which LOUIS NAPOLEON insisted strongly upon the policy of secularizing the Papal sy_stem—a policy urgently advocated by M. DE FORCADE and other able and eminent men. Can our readers perceive no connection between these cir cumstances and the publication of the " D6bat sur " ? Do they not see behind that singular pamphlet Rome dealing a buffet against NAPO LEON, suspected of a design to make the Church in France Galilean, with an Emperor for its Head—a buffet intended as a warning and as an exhibition of what Rome could do if She would ? We are not surprised, then, that the Emperor should try to put down this work of reprisal with the strong hand which the suffrage of the People has given him, and should endeavour to grasp M. DE MONTALEMBERT within a law which, however repugnant it may be to the notions of Englishmen, is still the duly enacted and fully recognized law of the country of which M. DE MONTALEMBE irr is a citizen. Whether it was politic to take such a step is another question. We do not think it was ; neither do we think it was just or wise to attempt to hide the light of M. DE MONTALENIBERT'S defence under a bushel. When, under circumstances of great diffi culty, and with Ireland well-nigh in a state of Rebellion, the Government of this country found it necessary to institute a prosecution against O'CONNELL, the utmost publicity was given to the whole of the proceedings, and the utmost liberty of comment was accorded, and it is much to be regretted that France has not taken our conduct at that crisis as her guide and her example. We are quite aware of the difficulties of the Empire but newly consolidated, and menaced by more than one Claimant for the Throne ; but, even making full allowance for this circumstance, although we do not agree with the Saturday Review in regarding the proceeding as an outrage to the English nation, or in comparing its author to CHARLES IX., and the prosecution itself to the Massacie of St. Bartholomew, we think it would have been more just to have administered the law in a different manner, and more politic to have over looked the offence altogether. inflicts a fine, or sends the party inculpated to prison, or he orders him to be well whipped, his nose to be sliced open, his ears to be pared away, or his head to be chopped off, and there is an end of the matter. The judge has exercised his functions; justice has been administered. Expe ditious, however, and conclusive as is this mode of administering justice, it is somewhat too Oriental for the meridian of London ; and was, accordingly, pronounced to be so by the Court of Queen's Bench on the application of the Rev. ALFRED POOLE for a rule calling upon his Grace the Archbishop of CANTERBURY to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to make, or cause to be made, inquiry into the matter of the appeal made to him by the late Curate of St. Barnabas against the revocation of his licence by the Bishop of LONDON. In listening to this application, the Court of Queen's Bench exhibited an almost nervous, and, all things considered, by no means unnatural, anxiety to preclude the introduction into the pleadings of Counsel of any of the facts or state ments which constituted the original ground of complaint against Mr. PooLE, or of any argu ments bearing upon the doctrine and practice of confession as held and permitted, or condemned and disallowed, by the Church of England. This wise caution of the Learned Judges who granted the rule nisi the public will do well to imitate in following the further progress of a cause involving questions of the gravest importance and of the most exciting nature—questions on which the religious mind of England is entitled to ask that an authoritative decision shall be pronounced, in accordance not merely with the letter of the for mularies, but with the spirit of the faith, of the Church of England. That decision, however, it is not the province of the Court of Queen's Bench, any more than of the public meetings collected at St. James's-hall and elsewhere, to pronounce ; and in commenting upon the case in its present stage we shall best consult the Interests of truth and justice by seconding, within the sphere of our influence, Lord CAMPBELL'S laudable desire to maintain a clear distinction between the different points in issue. Those points are substantially four in number. It remains, in the first place, to be ascer tained—for by no inquiry deserving the name of a judicial investigation has this as yet been done —whether there is any truth in the statements— too filthy to be read in any public place, as Mr. Boviu. observed—respecting Mr. POOLE'S alleged method of hearing confession, which a clerical " brother " of the late Curate of St. Barnabas not only transmitted, as the basis of a formal com plaint, to the Bishop of LONDON, but made, to the very verge of indecency, the staple of his harangue to a public meeting. To some extent this question has been answered by the Bishop of LONDON'S declaration that he considered those statements unworthy of credit ; and if this con clusion of the Ordinary had been arrived at upon testimony regularly proctuced and sifted before him in accordance with the recognized rules of evidence, his Lordship's verdict upon this point might have superseded, or at least rendered un necessary, the not very edifying spectacle which, we fear, is in store for the public when the cause " Poole v. Baring " shall be brought into court. The next point in issue is the main question— a question of the deepest importance to the whole Church of England,—the question, namely, whe ther the system of formal and habitual " auricu lar " confession, such as it is advocated by theologians of the extreme Tractarian school, and confessedly practised by the Hon. and Rev. Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. POOLE'S Incumbent, and other clergymen of th at school, is, or is not, consistent with the doctrine and discipline of the Church of' Eng land, as set forth in her formularies of faith and worship. To this question, also, an answer has been given, though n ot in connection with th e exercise of his j udic ial function; by the sam e Right Rev. Prelate whose declaration acquits Poor of the indecencies laid to his charge by Mr. BARING, while his judicial decision —the re. vocation of Mr. PooLE's licence —has been m a d e the subject of an appeal to the Archbishop. The exposition of the Church's principles upon tloi point by the Bishop of LONDON ill his Primary Visitation Charge—which, although not equiva lent to an authoritative decision of the whole Church, is yet, as the deliberate opinion of a Chief Pastor of the Church delivered ex cuthedrf;, entitled to the most respectful consideration— will command the assent of all sound and tem perate Churchmen, and is of great value, not only because it is calculated to clear up and settle men's minds on a matter rendered needlessly intricate by casuistic subtlety, but because it goes a great way to relieve the collateral issues arising out of the proceedings against Mr. Poop: of the weight of this, which is the main question. Doubtless the exposition given by the Bishop of LONDON of the Church's doctrine and intended practice with regard to confession is subject to the revision of higher authorities than that of a single bishop ; but it is an exposition which, in his Episcopal Charge, it was competent for him to give, and which, unless called in question and set aside by a superior decision, constitutes the rule by which the clergy of his diocese are, in foro eon• scientue, at all events, bound to regulate their conduct. Nor do we apprehend that, before whatever superior tribunal, and in whatever form, this question may yet come to be can vassed, there is the remotest chance of any decision being pronounced at variance with the Bishop's lucid and accurate exposition. Feeling, as we do, deeply grateful to the Right Rev. Prelate for the manly straightforwardness with which he treated that important and, at the present moment, so exciting subject in his Charge, we no less deeply regret that we are unable to speak with the same confidence re specting the course pursued by his Lordship in regard to the third point involved in Mr. PooLE's case—the question, namely, whether the Ikv. AL FRED POOLE was duly convicted of such an infringement of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as to justify the extreme severity of the sentence pronounced by the Bishop —the revocation of his licence. On this point several questions of great nicety arise. In the first place it may be asked,—when the Bishop of LONDON had, no matter by what process, arrived at the conclusion that the statements on which the complaint against Mr. PooLE was founded were wholly unworthy of credit, was not the Bishop, assuming the justness of his conclusion, bound to dismiss the complaint altogether ? Was he justified in extracting from the statements or arguments advanced by Mr. POOLE, in his defence against a charge which broke down altogether from the discreditable character of the evidence adduced in its support, materials for a totally different charge—a charge preferred, not before, but by the Bishop, combining in his own person the characters of prosecutor and of judge? Fr , ther, it may be asked, was he justified in passing sentence upon Mr. POOLE on the ground of the new charge improvised by himself in the coarse of the proceedings arising out of the original complaint, without furnishing the accused wit!' the data upon which every judicial sentence Is supposed to be based—that is to say, the specific. acts by which the party sentenced is accused. of having violated the law—and without affording him the opportunity of making his defence, by showing, if he can, either that he has not com mitted the acts limputed to him, or that they do not involve a violation of the law ? Still further, it may be asked, assuming in regard to these preliminaries everything to have been done as justice required, and Mr. POOLE to have been duly convicted of a violation of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, wa s thi, sentence pronounced by the Bishop commensa- rate with the offence, or was it excessive it question becomes the more important, since t entire countenance and sanction of his Incumbent, appears that in what he did Mr. PooLE had the who, very naturally and very p the circumstances, offered to take the onus of the alleged offence, for which his Curate was called in question , upon himaelf—an offer all the more roperly, undhcr, THE POOLE CASE. IN a free country like ours, and under a well regulated system of law, it is of the very essence of judicial power that it excludes all that is, or has the appearance of being, arbitrary. The Eastern Cadi, it is true, is not hampered by forms of procedure or rules of evidence. A com plaint is laid before him ; he sends for the accused ; he makes as much, or as little, inquiry as may suffice to satisfy his own mind; and thereupon he pronounces judgment according to his own view of the merits of the case. Ile 1 1 1