The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-18 00:00:00

from their own convictions in all that they subsequently
did. But let the case be as the Tuscan tribunals and the
honourable gentleman states it—though I must say with
respect to those facts that they are contradicted by Captain
Walker in the most explicit terms—but let it be that
Francisco and Rosa Madiai did endeavour to induce several
persons, being Roman Catholics, to read the Bible, and
that they even endeavoured to induce them to believe that
certain doctrines taught in the Roman Catholic Church
were not authorised by the Bible—push their crime to the
utmost, allow that they were caught, as the charge has it,
flagrance delicto—that is, that they were caught reading
the Bible in the Italian language—l still say it was a moral
crime to punish persons for so doing. (Loud and prolonged
cheering.) Well, then, the Government of this country—

. _
in the first place my noble friend the member for Tiverton,
next the Earl of Malmesbury when he was Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, and in the last place since I have been at
the Foreign-office I have taken the same line—we all stated
to our ministers in Tuscany that they ought to use all the
influence they could, or that the name of this country
was capable of producing, to obtain a remission of the
sentence of these persons. Now, with respect to the
different Secretaries of State, I say we were fully justified
in this proceeding, and I think we have shown such
a disposition to press the case as far as it could be
pressed according to the circumstances of the time, that I
feel I am entitled to ask my honourable friend not to press
this motion, but rather to leave it in the hands of the
Government. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The hon.
gentleman, who has not given his opinion, as I maintain,
on the general subject, says that we are not justified in
considering ourselves the friends of religious liberty, because
we concern ourselves only on behalf of Protestants, while,
when oppressions and persecutions are exercised towards
Roman Catholic subjects, we are utterly indifferent, and do
not interfere. That such is our general conduct can hardly
be maintained, because neither in the United Kingdom nor
in any of the dominions of her Majesty with which I am
acquainted can any person be punished for the offence of
endeavouring to induce another to become a Roman
Catholic. The hon. gentleman must be aware that accord-
ing to the general maxims of the laws of this country we
would shrink with abhorence from anyproposition to punish
persons because they had endeavoured to induce others
to become Roman Catholics. The hon. gentleman does not
deny this to be the case ; and so far our conduct as a State
is in such contrast with that of Tuscany that we can go
with clean hands and ask the Grand Duke not to exercise
persecution. But then it appears that my noble friend
near me, when he was Secretary. of State for Foreign
Affairs, showed indifference to the question of religious
persecution. I should certainly have been surprised if
had been the case with regard to my noble friend ; because
I know no man who has more frequently or more persever-
ingly shown his attachment to the cause of religious liberty
—(cheers) ; and I well remember in that great struggle in
which I was permitted to take part only by my vote, which
ended in admitting Roman Catholics to seats in this house
and in the Government, one of the most powerful specaes
at the close of that struggle in favour .of the Roman
Catholics, was the speech of my noble friend. (Cheers.)
But my noble friend, it appears, took part in the disputes
between the cantons of Switzerland, some of which said
there would be no peace nor quiet in the land as long as the
Jesuits wore allowed to remain. My noble friend said that
might possibly be the case, because he had learned from
history that the Jesuits had everywhere been the disturbers
of the peace of States. (Ironical cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) But was my noble friend, when he said that, in-
dulging in a Protestant prejudice ? That could hardly be
the case, because there were Roman Catholic princes who
had declared the same thing with respect to the Jexuits,
but in much stronger terms. (Cheers.) Among ether
places from which they had been expelled was the kingdom
of Spain, and by his most Catholic Majesty the King of
Spain, in whose kingdom down to the present day no Pro-
testant was allowed, and in the next place, the Pope him-
self had declared that the order of the Jesuits was alto-
gether inconsistent with the cause of good order. (Cheers
and laughter.) If my noble friend, therefore, was misled,
if he had formed a wrong estimate of the order of the
Jesuits— and there may be many estimable and admirable
persons to be found in that order—if ho was misled, ho was
misled not by Protestant but by Roman Catholic authori-
ties. Then the hon. gentleman, finding it difficult to find
an example of intolerance either in the United Kingdcrm or
in any of the possessions of her Majesty, he lights upon an
island in the South Seas, and here he says is an instance of
intolerance which passed without notice or rebuke. It is
not for me—l shall certainly not undertake the task of de-
fending Mr. Pritchard and tho laws of Queen Pomare. For
my part, I do not see that we were obliged to go farther in
the matter than we did, because my noble friend, in his
dispatch, informed Mr. Pritchard that it was impossible
for the Queen of this country to remonstrate with France,
or to take the island under her protection ; and then ;fore
ho declined the proposition of Mr. Prichard.. The re is
no doubt that there have been dissensions between the
persons who have gone to establish missions in the
South Seas, sometimes originating with the Protestant Ids-
' sionaries, sometimes with the Roman Catholic missionaries;.
and I must say that these dissensions are not at all credit-
able to the Christian profession. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
gentleman complains of the laws of Sweden, and he refers
to certain books, which, he says, I procured to supper t the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. I must say I read very little of
those books—my case did not require them ; and as t o the
dispatch of Mr. Gordon, I do not know even to what, it is
he refers. The question of the ecclesiastical titles was a
question of fact. I held that it was a question of temporal
power. Others maintained, against me, that it was a spi-
ritual question, and that it referred to the exercise of reli- ,
gion. The question undoubtedly touched on the confines I
of both. _ I am not going to resume that dispute now ; but
that was really the question—whether we were right who
maintained that it was a temporal question, or whether
those were right who said it was a spiritual question. But
with respect to Sweden, or any other country, if the hon.
gentleman, when ho brings his motion before the house, or
makes his representation to the Secretary of State for Fo-
reign Affairs, will show that religious persecution exists, I
am sure that the Foreign Secretary will have no objection
to state to our minister residing in that particular country,
that it is not consistent with tho spirit of the ago and with
the maxims of the most civilised countries to adopt perse-
cution on account of religion. That her Majesty at the
head of this State—one of the most eminent, one of the
most powerful States in Europe—that her Majesty should
instruct her ministers to take a secular interest in the per-
secutions of Protestants, is surely no unnatural circum-
stance. It arises from the Protestant character of this
country—it has descended to us from the times of
the Vaudois from the Revocation of the Edict of
Nantes, and from other acts when we were called
upon to succour Protestants who were persecuted and
ill-treated by Roman Catholic States. I am not ashamed of
being one of those who inherit those principles—(cheers)—
and I think the Government have done nothing unbecom-
ing themselves. if they represent to a Roman Catholic
Sovereign that Protestants are ill-treated, either in Tus-
cany or elsewhere. But the hon. gentleman said—Go to
the sovereigns who hold your own persuasion. But is it
not natural that we should rather go on behalf of those
who are of the same religion with ourselves, and who are
suffering, than that we should go to sovereigns who are of
the same religion ? With respect to the case of the nuns
at Minsk, the facts were obscure, and they were denied on
the part of Russia. The only sovereign, I believe, who
made a remonstrance on that occasion was the Pope.
(Cheers.) Well, that was natural—he naturally felt an
interest in those Roman Catholic nuns who were perse-
cuted, and he showed the interest which I think it was
natural for him to do. And on the same ground, If Pro-
testants are persecuted by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, it
is natural that the Queen of England should take as much
interest as the Pope did in the case of nuns, and interfere
in their behalf. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) But
while I admit this—while I admit that it is natural that
we should feel most interest on behalf of persecuted Pro-
testants—l assert again, what I maintained at an earlier
part of my speech, that the principle is one and universal
—that there ought to be no exception--that persecution
for religion is always odious and detestable, and that the
its ice againstcountryrnmentofthispersecutio. n will
walewsahyosuiddobweeall sstisatelicfitard
hapaps l
jauusdtespd
obkyenth, e
Ivosihcalle of
hteheglhaednotourfite
tgheanttlewame
anrewhallo
agreed on the subject. I cannot say, for my part, that the
Catholic cagsanibnjsetcttshoefmhaedriaMi.aj elsthyaavpeprsoevene
teofsttirahes:
f speeches made by
actsoe e
borne,
committed
r nC ea ,
participate in the general feeling, though
the first to complain,
I have seen reports o
Ro-
manis'h
ow
tCatholics,hat
they which are extremely gratifying,. as they
naturally they were not
al
Catholicreligjothu se in
p r
ig opinions.ennceirp l e
sadisapprovelo fe(Hear.)
religiousrln
mo f
law gt
ow becomehh
ieexcth would
justify
. • trf
• •
sure it is most desirable that
persecution
aotntha
eccßouomntajel6
to those States in which they
ofFnce
revolution of 1789, the Protestants France
have since the
liberty should spread andflouiciisohn,oatnndowshporulevdeibie. extended
religion. I have often
have not been visited by paersdeocfutpiornoteosntaanctcoculenrtgyinof
entheiinr
rernrdottelisetiranfltso,ckasn,dalnddotonmotduhcee-
" any person in
iißFerovamenactenheecnraedtieheaovenliocurinys
to
France, or any
ore civilised parts of Europe,
their opinions. authority in France, in in e enng with
ciples ; and I trust we are not
these opinions, and
will be disputed. Holding)mancoCmaitnhgo ltioc ,a
time hose
h en pt
ti eny-
whether ProtestanTh:Choeree
having taken the course which.h.
mathai,
I certainly do think
to this particular ease of 1
House f Commons may leave
lrs I
have taken with respect
it in the hands of the Government—(stra.nces, not to be con-
tinuallyit may be wise, having made remonstrances,
remonstrances. Our opinions are
that my hon. friend and the
repeating those cheers)—and I think
that the general opinion
the Ma:diai and others may suffer
it throughout the world.
will at length secure religious libe y throu g
known our voice has been heard, and Ido trust, although
(Loud cheers.)
country, it was therefore
that as this was a Protestant
anh ehalf of Protes-
reasonable it should interfere ra
Catholics. He admitted
tants, than on behalf of Rom
ulation were Protestant, and
Mr. BOWYER could not admit, to an unlimited.extent,
that as the majority of the pop
try might be called a Protestantsed which admitted Roman
when the Emancipation Act pas
other bodies, that the dis-
as
Catholics to the same privilegesd Protestant would have been
as the Established Church was P rocotunestantryt;
bsoutfahrethdiisde,ohounpe-
Unction between Catholic an
Ire-
kingdom was a Catholic country
red 6,000,000, whilst the
land the Roman Catholics numbs(pressi of dissent.)
Protestants did not reach ono; l .
ht as to the propor-
tbe precise y right forgotten. He could not forgeHt
ethbaetheovneed pthaiatt
ionf
Itrhee.
He perhaps might no
accurately; but there could
meat to ascertain. the numbers .
majority of the lanPula-
overwhelming . that to be
be no doubt that an
Catholic. Knowing
tion of Ireland was Roman .
ht to call on the noble
mo-
tion, because it was extremely difficult at the present mo-
the case, he thought he had a. n
Roman Catholic subjects the
e there was no class of
to Protestants. He was quite and
attached to the Crown
not
lord to say that the CrownofsaEmgnealanp
her Majesty's subject more truly
Catholics. He could t
Constitution than the Roman extend to its
subjecttfelt satisfaction to
pardonhear to
rodtewcaulonlas it afforded
y had extended a
tthe
the Grand Duke
approach this painful
of
Tuscan- He did not believe the
these unfortunate persons.
aired the secular arm to supo-
Roman Catholic religion req
would give him the mof
itself by its own truth ; and h
. without declaring that it
between the two
hat religion.
to the advantage of t
th
churches must redound
enjoyed in this country ey
What the Roman Ca.tholiocts_
other
he
;
but whilst ex-
wished to see enjoyed in h
t sincerely, he must endeavour to
port it. It could support .
case umler discussion.
pressing this of
character the
was convincefdeeltihnagtmaosfr3 discussion
show the true legal c
laced OIL the footing
It had been pla
ad soken
it ought to have been.
• and one hon. member h. ,
of religious persecution,
regal rarchy to regain its power,.
of the efforts of the Ronal.
which had taken place in
the proceed.
and attributed .
to the ifluence of the Holy See.
He did not think the case had been put before the house as
to show that this was not the
He though which the prosecu
tion was ineti.
Jan-
The
cede
under
d Duke Leopold, a
Jan-
case.
that of the Gran
of the Emperor
tilted was
d'sciple and follower
lesiastical
the case oftthhee
nist Sovereign, a 1
seof the,
Joseph a code
which
the hierarchy and clergy ,
should be able
In
civil and temporal power. .
Church of Rome of all their
ower except that belonging
Tuscany, the bishops had no 1:.
Court, and deprived. abolished the Ecc