The Press.
London, England, 1857-06-20 00:00:00

THE NEW ROMAN CATHOLIC

MOVEMENT.
IT was once well observed in Parliament that
" the Emancipation Bill of 1829 was the last
" measure in one, and the first in another
" series of concessions." The remark came
from the philosophic lips of the Right Hon. T.
WYSE, our present Minister in Greece, and the
historian of the Roman Catholic Association.
Protestants would do w ell to consider the latter

595

part of that observation, which is critically
correct. Since 1829 the Roman Catholics
have vastly increased their representative
power. The exaggerated influence of the
agitating priesthood not only gives them an
average of thirty-five Irish Roman Catholic
:WY's., but it produces also a " pro-Romanist "
influence of a most anomalous character, and
undermines the Protestant interest in other

directions. The Corporations, also, have beett
reformed—a change which in England and
Scotland was one chiefly of class, but which
in Ireland has been one of creed ; some of
the results of which are visible in the organ-
ised opposition to " Ministers' Money."
Along with concessions of a political and
Parliamentary character, there has been a
large official increase in the social influence
of the Roman Catholics. A Chief Justice-

ship, a Mastership of the Rolls, the office
of Lord Chief Baron twice, Puisne Judge-
ships, Privy Councillorships, and a
variety of posts of honour, have been placed
at their disposal. These concessions, so far
from having a sedative, have had a stimu-
lating effect on them. They stood together
as one man for the "Cardinal Lord Archbishop
of Westminster," when the aggression was
made ; and at the present time the zeal of
their body in England and Ireland appears to
be concentrated again with a view of some
ulterior purposes. The rapidity with which
all the chief social notabilities of their persua-
sion have come together, along with the un-
usual cordiality of tone between the English
and Irish Roman Catholics, and the astuteness
with which some of their proceedings have
been managed, indicate a controlling and
managerial power, and proves that some
further objects, not yet revealed, are now
being aimed at.
Whenever Roman Catholicism bends its
nerves and sinews for a great purpose, it is
remarkable how simultaneous is its action
amongst its votaries in every country. In
Paris the organisation and concert of the
Roman Catholic journalists is matter of re-
mark in literary circles, and it is not unlikely
that they act in harmony with the Belgian
Ultramontanes. In Belgium the privileges
conferred by popular representation are used
as weapons of the Pope. In Ireland " Minis-
ters' Money " is cried out against, not for the
sake of the twelve or fourteen thousand
pounds at stake, but in order to introduce the
fine point of the wedge, and break in upon the
Act of Union. Even while we write, intelli-
gence is just received from Naples of new
Church laws of ti most extraordinary character
—one of their significant provisions being that,
"in cases of penal proceedings against ec-
" clesiastics, the criminal and correctional
" magistrates should, as far as possible, avoid
all publicity, and conduct the discussions with
" closed doors." Amongst ourselves we have
this sudden burst of energy from the English
Roman Catholics, who on former occasions
have been most averse to pulling oars in the
same boat with their Irish coreligionists. It
is specially to be noted, also, that our English
Roman Catholics are not much concerned in the
nature of the Roman Catholic Oath, as only one
member of their body (Lord E. HOWARD) 15
in the House of Commons. It may be said
that they come forward for the sake of a
principle, but it is singular how tame and in-
active they have been on other occasions,
compared with the sudden energy that has
now appeared in their body.
We rejoice, therefore, that their new
designs were signally defeated on Monday
night. Out of the eighty-three Members who
voted with Mr. DEASY on Monday more than
one-half were Irish Members, and we observe
only one English " statesman" in the
minority. As might have been anticipated,
that " statesman " was Sir JAMES GRAHAM.
The speech of Mr. DEASY was cautious in its
argument and calm in its temper; but his
facts refuted his reasoning. Mr. WHITESIDE,
the eloquent Member for Enniskillen, de-
scribed Mr. DEASY as "acute, intelligent, and
sly," the latter word being either a playful
touch in " pretty Fanny's way," or intended as
a compliment to a " counsellor." Mr. DEASY
is one of the most eminent members of the
Equity Bar in Ireland ; we readily admit that
his personal qualities and intellectual worn?

596

plishments entitle him to be called " honour-
able and learned," even if he were neither a
Member of Parliament nor a barrister. The
failure of so able a man in proving his case
shows the weakness of his cause. He cited a
long passage delivered in the heat of debate
by Sir C. WETHERELL to the effect that an oath
would be no security. But au opinion de-
livered arguendo is not of authoritative efficacy,
as Mr. DEASY must well know. It is not what
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL thought, but what
others now think upon it, that is to be regarded;
and if Mr. DEASY will consult " Hansard " for
1833, the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man will find that Dr. LUSHINGTON, in the first
year of the Reformed Parliament, taunted the
Irish Romanist M P.'s with their apparent
oblivion of the oath they had taken.
Mr. DEASY also shivered his arguments to
fragments when he attempted to reason against
the utility of the oath by referring to the dif-
ferent constructions put upon its obligations.
The same thing would occur in any oath of a
" security " character; the same line of reason-
ing might be taken against the utility of any
oaths at all. We can easily conceive besides,
how, without the slightest impeachment of
their personal honour, gentlemen like the late
Mr. SHED., or Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL, would be
unconsciously prejudiced in their construc-
tion of the oath. Mr. StIEIL was second only
to Mr. O'CONNELL in his championship of
the Romish cause in 1829. For years
previously the practical question had
been whether " Emancipation " should be
" conditional" or " unconditional." " Give us
securities," said the Protestant opponents of
" Emancipation." " We'll have no conditions,"
said the violent party of the Roman Catholics.
The cause of " Emancipation " had lost ground
in England at the general election of 1826,
but the death of the Duke of YORK, and of the
Earl of LIVERPOOL, the declining health of
GEORGE IV., and the fact of the next heir to
the Crown being a " pro-Romanist," naturally
altered the relative strength of the parties,
but by no means changed the principles at
issue. Sir ROBERT PEEL characteristically
yielded to the " pressure," but fortunately the
oath now discussed was exacted from the
Romanists entering the Legislature. Mr.
O'CONNELL, Mr. SHEIL, and their friends
boasted that they had carried Emancipation
without conditions, achieving what the old
advocates of the Romanists, BURKE, GRATTAN,
and Fox, had failed to gain. But their boasts
were false. The " Roman Catholic Oath "is
a condition of the first importance, as we shall
show in a few sentences.

Against the political prejudices of the anti-
Church Dissenters, we admit that the Oath in
question is no security. If the people of England,
through their representatives in the House of
Commons, express a desire to abolish the Irish
Church, the Act of Union may prevent their
wishes being carried out, but this Oath
could obviously interpose no obstacle. In
another way, moreover, it acts with potent
efficacy. It does check the active zeal of
Romanist levellers; it does tie up their hands,
and it weakens their influence considerably,
in case they are rash enough to bring forward
motions against the Established Church.
They do so in face of their oath, and we are
therefore forewarned. It is true that they may
find titular Protestants to act as their deputies,
and raise motions to serve the Romanists, but
even in that case we know the puppets, and
who pull the wires. The Duke of NORFOLK, a
zealous Roman Catholic, feels and confesses
that the oath is binding. So does Mr. FAOAN,
the Member for Cork, and biographer of
O'CoNNE Li., a gentleman of high character, large
wealth, and identified with " agitation " for
many years. With the old agitators of the
O'Connell and Sheil stamp it was a point of
honour to boast of " unconditional Emancipa-
tion," but in England we know better.
" Emancipation" was conditional, and the
abolition of the forty-shilling freeholders in
Ireland must be accepted as at once a con-
stitutional, political, and even legal proof of
the conditionalism on which " Emancipation "
was conceded in 1829,

Finally, there is one consideration of
supreme importance on this subject. The
question has often been ignorantly asked,
t' Have wo a Protestant Constitution or not?"

THE PRESS.

Asjong as the Roman Catholic Oath is enforced
that question must be answered affirmatively;
but if it were cancelled, a dangerous advan-
tage would be given to those who, for insidious
purposes, would adopt the negative side. We
trust, therefore, that no false sentiments of a
spurious Liberalism will ever be permitted to
loosen the securities enacted on the conces-
sion of the Roman Catholic claims.