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

lord at the Foreign-office did not exactly advise that a re-
ception should not be given to the priests ; of course he
said every Government had the right to refuse to any
foreigner permission to reside within its dominions if
the presence of such foreigner was considered hurtful
to society. The honourable member then proceeded to
refer to a document from Mr. Pritchard, addressed to
Lord Palmerston, containing a copy of the law then re-
cently passed in the island, forbidding any person to pro-
pagate any religion in the island other than that which
had been. of 91d.propagated in Tahiti" by the missiona-
tines of Britain. The reply of the noble Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, instead of being a scathing rebuke to the
rev. consul of London-wall, simply stated that her Majesty
expressed her deep concern for troubles of Queen Pomare,
and promised his good offices in the event of any interfe-
rence by other powers in the affairs of the Government of
Tahiti. That law remained in force, as he understood, for
two or three years ; and it was put an end to, by what and
by whom ? It was put an end to by the French admiral,
coming from a Catholic country, with the Popish religion
in his bottom—(laighter)—bringing that sort of a freight
with him, he came with the Popish religion and with the
French cannon, and the established—what ? A strange
thing in the history of the Protestant religion in the South
Seas, and he established that every one should be free to
exercise his own form of worship and religion. (Hear, hear.)
And the strange thing was that, notwithstanding the let-
ter which he had read, and two or three others of the same
nature from Mr. Pritchard, that gentleman continued down
to the present day to be consul in the South Seas and the
Navigator's Islands ; and unless theseldocuments were im-
perfect, he had never received a rebuke nor a single word
of censure for doing that which they censured the Grand
Duke of Tuscany for doing ; he still remained there to
preach those persecuting doctrines which had received no
censure from the noble lord, and which excited no commis-
seration when they told upon their own side, but which
excited emotions of holy horror and indignation when they
told against them, and happened to promote the cause
which they endeavoured to oppress and destroy. (Hear,
hear.) If he could believe that this resolution which they
were now considering expressed the real facts of the case
with regard to the Madiai, there was only one conside-
iation which would prevent him from adopting it, and if
there was a division from dividing in its favour ; and that
was that he never would recognise the principle that the
exercise of their humanity and philanthropy should be all
on one side. The noble lord spoke excellent truth, sense,
and wisdom when he referred to Russia, but he might
have referred to other countries with which this country
was more immediately connected, and much nearer home.
He held in his hand two volumes which had been laid on
the table by the noble lord the present Foreign Secretary as
inducements for the house to consent to that new persecu-

Lion against the Catholic Church which animated Rim two
years ago, and which he lately told them animated him still.
These documents contained an account of the public legis-
lation of Europe with respect to religion, and upon the
grounds contained in them the noble lord pretended to
base what he called his Ecclesiastical Titles Rill. He
turned to the law of Sweden, and he found—what ? Mr.
Gordon sent a series of documents for the information of
the noble lord and the house, showing what was the legis-
lation of that eminently Protestant country. He bespoke
the noble lord's favourable attention to these documents by
telling him that the relation of the two countries—especially
with regard to Rome—were so similar. He (Mr. Lucas)
could hardly forbear commenting upon the terms in which
this document was written. It came from a secretary of
legation—an official who was bound to observe the ordi-
nary terms of decency in speaking of his Catholic fellow-
subjects ; and he must remind this Mr. Gordon and the
noblci lord, who had insulted the Catholics by laying this
document before the house, that the name by which the
Catholics were designated in acts of Parliament and other
public documents was not Romanists, but Roman Catholics.
(Hear.) The word Romanist was a nickname—it was a
piece of Billingsgate coming from an official, who derived his
salary and his means of living from all classes of the com-
munity; but who sent this trash to be laid upon their table,
to insult those from whose pockets he derived his bread, and
for which ho was not reproved either by the noble lord
who was now, or the noble lord who was then, in the
Foreign-office. But he would pass from that the law
which this Mr. Gordon explained ; and he hardly knew
how to describe it, but there was a cheerfulness which
came over him when he spoke of those laws which lent
vigour and elasticity to his pen. He spoke of the tolera-
tion which had existed in the country; but what wore the
facts of the case ? Every stranger who settled in the country
and professed a foreign religion was not to be employed in
any public situation ; he was not allowed to open schools—
no missionaries were to be allowed in the country—no
monasteries were allowed. One clause, he was sure, would
excite the sympathy of the noble lord opposite, if nothing
else did—the Jews were not allowed to have synagogues,
except in Stockholm and one or two other large towns. The
processions and ceremonies of foreign religions were for-
bidden ; the 'laws against apostacy were strictly carried
into effect ; the liberty of the press did not extend to books
inculcating the dogmas of a foreign religion • any member
of a foreign religion speaking disrespectfully of the creed
or services of the national Church was to be fined frem
10 to 50 dollars ; any person endeavouring to persuade
others to embrace a foreign religion, 100 dollars; any person
tempting others to attend the exercise of a foreign religion,
200 dollars ; and, if they persisted in these crimes,
they were to lose their privilege of residing in
the kingdom. But it might be said this was only
the hitter and text of the law, and that they were in-
operative. It would be a sad mistake to make such an
assertion. In the first document which came from Mr.
Gordon they had a statement, given with the greatest anima-
tion and delight, of the manner in which these laws worked
in practice. He did not, indeed, tell the whole truth ; but
ho told them enough to prove that the laws were not inope-
rative. There was one instance in which the Swedish
Government complained of the over-proselytising zeal of a
Roman Catholic priest at Stockholm. Application was made
to Rome, and the over-active ecclesiastic was recalled from
his post. Was that all ? No ; if it were ho would not have
inflicted upon the house this lip statement. He wished to
show that there were at this moment going ou in Protes-
tant States acts of persecution against Catholics of which
they were studiously and habitually uninformed, and which
as much deserved and required the sympathy of this house
and the Government as the case of the Madiai, unless they
were about to adopt a course which would write them up
throughout Europe as men who said one thing and meant
another—men who had the words tbleration, religious
liberty, and the spirit of this enlightened age, upon their
lips, but who did not practise what they preached—who
practised it only in defence of their own system of religion,
but who looked on with unconcern and indifference when
the sufferings of others happened to be in quesaion. He
meant at an early period to submit to the house a motion
with reference to other circumstances, other facts, other
countries, and other acts of persecution, but which equally
deserved the attention of the house with that which the
honourable gentleman had brought before them. He would
do this whether the present motion were carried or not,
because the papers which were in all their hands showed
that the English Government had interfered in the case of
the Madiai, and he meant to test the sincerity of the Go-
vernment whether—having done so much for people who
were persecuted bra Catholic Government—they would
as much for people who were persecuted by a Protestant
Government. He would bring them to the test on this
subject, and Jib would tell them a part of the facts which
he would lay before them.' With regard to Sweden he
would be prepared to show that the laws ho had already,
referred to were no dead letter ; that in 1848 it was pro-
posed by Count Stettin to repeal that part of the law
which referred to confiscation and exile, leaving the other
disabilities remaining, but the Legislature of the country
rejected his proposal. Then, for instances of the way
in which the law was applied, he could show, that,
in 1848, a man was committed for having read a Ca-
tholic Bible, and said a Pater Nester to a few peo-
ple, for which he was fined 40 rix-dollars. In
1847, a Lutheran minister at Stockholm, sent a policeman
to a woman to know if it was true that she had been re-
ceived within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church, and
she was allowed time to reflect whether or not she would
recant. There were also two brothers, of the name of Nel-
son, painters, and one of them turned Catholic. He was
driven from Sweden and died in the public hospital at
Copenhagen. For his part, he thought that if the Govern-
ment of this country was to interfere on the ground of hu-
manity—which was the basis of the present motion—the
name of Nelson had as strong a claim to sympathy as that of
Madiai. When he brought his motion touching these cases
before the house, he would not ask any of his honourable
friends near him to second it, he would ask the honourable
gentleman opposite (Mr. Kinnaird) to do him the honour of
seconding the resolution which was to strike out a new course
for the foreign policy of this country—which would bring a
new class of cases within its cognizance, and which would
I throw the power and influence of the Foreign-office, and
the faith and name of this great empire on the side of hu-
manity. The Catholic cases he had mentioned occurred in
1845 and 1847, but this very year a Catholic lady, residing
in Stockolm, had been arrested for making proselytes, and
put upon her trial. She was defended on a technical ground
—he did not know the result, nor did he care, what he was
concerned with was to show that in Sweden the system of
law was as persecuting as in Tuscany. When he brought
forward his motion, thereforehe counted upon its receiving
the all but unanimous approbation of the house, or, at least
an assurance that the same course would be pursued by the
Foreign-office towards all cases of persecution. When he
brought forward his motion he would take the noble lord
to the system in Sweden, to Mecklenburgh next, and next to
Saxony ; and when the noble lord had rebuked that evil
spirit out of the Protestants—when he had accomplished
that great work—when he had performed that herculean
labour—when he had cleansed that augean stable, then he
might begin with the Catholic States, and attempt to reform
them. As he began by saying he would have supported
this resolution if it had been in accordance with the facts
of the case—as it was he could not support it ; but, when
he brought forward the motion of which he had given
notice, he looked to be seconded by the honourable gentle-
man. (Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL : In following the able speech
of the honourable gentleman, I own I should have been
better pleased with that speech if that honourable gentle.
man had indicated somewhat more decidedly than he has
done, whether or not he approves of punishment and per-
secution for the sake of religious conversion—(loud cheers)
—or for endeavouring, by peaceable means, to convert
others to their religion. (Cheers.) In following that
speech, in listening to all the statements of the honourable
gentleman, I own I am totally at a loss to know whether
he approves or not of religious persecution. (Renewed
cheers.) I wish to refer as little as possible—though one
cannot altogether avoid—reference to the questions between
Protestants and Roman Catholics ; and I shall state at
once that my conviction is, that if Protestant states, Pro-
testant laws, or Protestant judges condemn persons because
they have become Roman Catholics, or because they teach
others to become Roman Catholics, they do that which I
consider to be morally wrong. (Loud cheers.) I care
little what particular profession of faith they hold. Itrmay
' be that they hold exactly the doctrines and articles of the
Church of England ; but if they, professing those doctrines,
endeavour to inculcate them by penal means, by imprison-
ment and punishment—l say that with such persons I have
no sympathy, and I would denounce them as readily as I
would a Roma Catholic Sovereign. Well, sir. what is
the case which my honourable friend the member for Perth
has brought before us? The honourable gentleman oppo-
site stated that there had been misrepresentation and exag-
gerations as to the nature of the crime for which the two
madiais were condemned—that it was not for the fact of
their being Protestants, but because being Protestants they
-endeavoured to convert others to Protestantism, and for
having.done so under foreign agency. Now, with respect
to this last part of the charge, although that it is so stated
in the general indictment, yet it seems to form no substan-
tive part of the charge, because the foreign agent—what-
ever might have bees} at first done—had left Tuscany some
time before, and these two persons seemed to act entirely.