The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-22 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING,

up the vigour of the denionstratian. As far as this had
been a demonstration of sound Protestant feeling, he en-
tirely rejoiced and concurred iu it. He thought it
highly satisfactory to witness it, and he thought
it of infinitely greater importaace, and of infinitely greater
value to the preservation of the Protestant religion against
aggression, than such a wretched piece of legislation as this.
—(Hear, hear.) In this, however, legislation was seen to
have degenerated, as in too many other instances it had,
into a mere "No Popsy" cry, and a blind hatred of the
Roman Catholic religion, with which thoughtless prejudices
he had no sympathy. Their Lordship would recollect
that shortly before the Revolution an excitement similar
to this prevailed for a considerable time—to use the words
of Macaulay, " the capital and the whole country at that
time went mad with hatred of the Pope, immediately upon
the discovery of the Popish plot." Their Lordships would
recollect that, though that excitement was As ephemeral
as the present, the country in a short time became
thoroughly ashamed of the delusion under which it had
laboured. When, therefore, he looked on the excitement
that had recently been manifested, he thought of that which
prevailed at the time of the Popish plot, and was corn-
forted.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the course which the Noble
Marquis opposite recommended the House to take was alien
to the course which he had pursued through a long series of
years. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) had, though differingfrom
him on most subjects, always supported him in those efforts
which he made on behalf of religious liberty. The Noble
Marquis, he was sure, was the last person in the world
knowingly to su sport or countenance auything which would
savour of persecution or harshness. There were those who
still thought of persecution, and the stake, and the scaffold,
but if they only considered the difference of the times, a
measure which then would have been regarded as liberal,
and even indulgent, would now have the character of a very
scanty measure of toleration. In dealing with religious sec-
taries, there was no middle course between a persecution
that exterminated, and a toleration that satisfied, the
weaker. They had for `ioo long years done their utmost to
exterminate all Catholicity from this country, and they had
failed. They had adopted a new system, and for the last
twenty years they had made progress in extending the prin-
ciples of that toleration which they adopted when it was
ascertained that extermination was impossible. This Bill
now dealt with a matter purely spiritual; for the Noble
Marquis would not deny that the nomination of a bishop
was an act purely spiritual. If they denied to a Church its
regular government, they no longer tolerated that Church.—
(Hear, hear.) Did they mean, as this Bill would do, did they
mean to refuse to the Roman Catholic people of this country
the government of their Church by the regularly ordained
bishops ?—( Hear, hear.) If so, he said they did not tolerate
that Church.—(Hear, hear.) Could they deny, either, that
an episcopal form of government was given to the Catholic
Church by bishops that it did sot enjoy under its vicars apos-
tolic ? He would now refer to the statement of a Noble and
Learned Lord when he moved the repeal of a mass of odious
and disgraceful statutes, which still disgraced she statute-
book. In moving the repeat' of those enactments, and
especially the 13th of Elizabeth, which prohibited
communications with Rome, he said that the denial of
communications with Rome for that purpose was a denial
of the want of bishops in the Catholic Church. If they
prohibited communications with Rome for that purpose, of
course they refused to tolerate the Catholic religion. No
Roman Catholic bishop could be collated without the au-
thority of a bull from the Pope of Rome, and many of
the observances of that Church required the same sanction.
He was, therefore, justified in inferring that the Roman
Catholics were allowed a communication with Rome for this
purpose, which, by this Bill, they proposed to take away.
To suppose any episcopal Church without bishops was an
absurdity—to suppose Roman Catholic bishops without the
authority of the Pope, was another absurdity. Provided
their appointment infringed on no existing rights—infringed,
he repeated, on no existing rights—the State, he apprehended,
sould not interfere. This was a question of principle. They
could not suppose an episcopal Church to exist without those
rights and privileges which they would deny them. Their
Lordships maintained the apostolic succession of bishops.
But what would they think if that assumption was so
thwarted as to prevent their adherence to that principle in
the Church of England? He asked no more for the Roman
Catholic episcopacy than the State allowed for the internal
government of every other dissenting Church. His
first great objection to the Bill was, that it was mainly
at variance with the true interpretation of the
Catholic Relief Act. By the 24th section of
that Act, it was enacted that any party who should assume
the titles of any bishopric or deanery in England or Ireland,
should forfeit a penalty of 1001, The fair construction of that
was that the assumption of titles not possessed by the bishops
was not forbidden. That was a penal clause, and they were
bound to construe it strictly, and not extend it to that which
was not expressed. He was a member of the Cabinet who
drew that Act, and he had been asked a hundred times why
the Roman Catholics had not bishops in England as in Ire-
land, but it had never occurred to him to say that it was be-
cause it was illegal. But he bad another reason. The Act
enacted that no person should assume titles in England or
Ireland. No mention was made of Scotland. And why, because
there were no bishopsrecognised by the law in Scotland. The
Act itself was demonstrative of the intentions of its framers,
because it would have been just as easy to prohibit bishops
in Great Britain, as in England and Ireland merely. That
was his first objection. It was a breach of freedom, and a
violation of the rights recognised by the Relief Act. He
would not be a party to violate the privileges which he be-
lieved to be intended to be accorded by that Bill. But
what was the act that had been done? What was the head
and front of the offending ? Was it not merely the convert-
ing vicars apostolic into bishops in ordinary ? He said it
was an act of regular administrations,onsthe part of the
Church of Rome. The Pope had a perfect right to con-
vert vicars apostolic into bishops in ordinary. It was the
substitution of a regular system for a system that was ir-
regular and exceptional. In what was a bishop different
from a vicar apostolic? Was there the slightest difference
whatever except for the internal government of the Roman
Catholic Church ? They must describe the man somehow.
The Noble Marquis talked of territorial titles as if it con-
veyed any rights or possessions. The idea was ab3urd

1061
There was nothing established in opposition to the Queen.
There was nothing established that was in opposition to and
not recognised by law. The hierarchy was constituted for
the purposes of their own internal government, and it had
no existence except in words, and could not operate in any
degree except upon those submitting to it.—( Hear, hear.)
This, it was said, was the beginning of a despotic govern-
ment. But what was the fact? So long ago as the Go-
vernment of Mr. Pitt the change from vicars apostolic to
bishops in ordinary was desired. But it was not confined to
Mr. Pitt; Sir J. Throgmorton and other eminent persons also
wished for this change. After that, was this rescript of the
Pope, conceding this desired change, a gross invasion of the
rights of the Sovereign of this country? Should it be con.
sidered as such? Towards us there was no change. To-
wards themselves only was there any change, and it was in
their favour, for the Pope had somewhit divested himself of
his power. The vicars apostolic were his mere deputies
and agents, and removable at pleasure; but he could only
remove bishops in ordinary for canonical offences, and they
were, consequently, much more independent. But the
Noble Marquis had discovered that this act was illegal
by an ancient law. They had for this purpose revived a
statute which had slept for 2'o years, and which, during
that period, so far as its practical application was con-
cerned was unknown. The statute of prremunire had no
application to the late rescript of the rope. It was his in-
terference with temporalities that induced the passing of
that statute, and to remove the grievance protested against
by the Commons, in the time of Richard 11. It had, there-
fore, no application to the ease now under discussion. By
this Act, every bishop appointed by the Church of Rome
would be an unlawful act. That would lead to most de-
plonble consequences; marriages, ordinations, and other
spiritual acts, would, as a consequence, be rendered unlawful.
He could not even conceive the consequences which must
result from so deplorable and tyrannical an act. lie would
next come to consider the violation as was alleged of the
supremacy of the Crown. It hal been said that the Crown
was in peril, and they were called to the rescue, but he
did not believe there was any danger. He wanted
to know how this supremacy of the Crown had been in-
vaded. In the address presented to the Queen by the bishops
of the Established Church various modes had been adopted to
describe the Papal aggression. First the address to the
Queen said it was an unparalleled insult offered to the Queen,
and to the Church of which her Majesty was the head.
That, however, was altered, and after $ little reflection the
Right Reverend Bishops fell back upon safe grounds—they
fell back on the 37th article of the Church, which they had
all signed, and which meant something, although it could not
be exactly ascertained what it was.—(Fear, and a laugh.)
The Queen was addressed as the head of the establishment
in this realm, whether ecclesiastical or civil; but the exact
limit of that supremacy was not defined• Now he would re-
mind their Lordships that when the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government sent up a Bill in '49 to introduce the
Jews into Parliament, that Bill went to repeal the oath of
supremacy. If, then, supremacy was a matter of so much
imp"rtance, it was rather disrespectful to bring in a Bill to
abolish that supremacy.—( Hear, hear.) In Scotland there
was no recognition of the Queen's ecclesiastical authority, and
when they had seen that the people who deny her eccle-
siastical supremacy were among the most devoted and the
most 10y.i.1 of her subjects—when they saw that the pe Tie
of Scotland of all denominations utterly rejected that hupr e-
macy, they should not so quarrel with the act of the Pope.—
( Hear, hear.) They must not forget that prelacy was
abolished in Scotland, and that the laws against it were
more severe than the laws against Catholics. But they
were told, also, that the prerogative was invaded by the late
act of the Pope. But how, he asked was that ? If the Pope
nominated bishops to sit in that House. or did anything to
interfere with the prerogrative of the Queen, that would be

different.—(llear, hear.) But they ignored the existence
of the Catholic bishops, and practically there was therefore
no interference with the Queens prerogative. They had
agreed to give full and ample toleration to every de-
scription of her Majesty's subjects, and they did that know-
ing that a Romaa Catholic bishop could not be named, ex-
cept by the authority of the Pope.—(Hear, hear.) He
must say, that to complain of the act of the Pope
was to complain of his existence, because the ap-
pointment of the bishops was inherent in his office.
(Hear. hear.) Those who were at all accustomed to the
Romish Church, knew that there was nothing particular
in the act complained of.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.")
The terms used in making the appointments were those
used on all such occasions, and to say that they meant any
.)
insult to this country was preposterous.—(Hear hear.
If there was really offee in the act of the Pope,
it was one which should have been proceeded against,
diplomatically or otherwise. He knew it would be said
that her Majesty's Government would be precluded from
p
taking that course by the Bill of '4s, which was assed
for the purpose of enabling this country to enter into
diplomatic relations with Rome, and in which a clause
was introduced to prevent the reception in this country of
any Nuncio of the Pope; but there was nothing in that
which would prevent intercourse on that subject. Let them
look at Prussia. Diplomatic relations were maintained by
Prussia, but no Nuncio was received, and the same was the
case, as we understood the Noble Lord to say, with Russia
and Hanover. He contended, therefore, that there was no-
thing to prevent England taking the course he had alluded
to. He thought he was right in the course he pursued at
the time he had alluded to in 1818, and he was still of opi-
nion that they ought not to receive the Pope's nuncio in
this country. In the treaty of Vienna there was a special
exception made in favour of the nuncio of the Pope, and
that would be the case in this country; if they had a nuncio
of the Pope, he would take precedence of the other ambas-
sadors in this country. In the present affair he really thought
the person who had most right to complain was the Pope
himself, and if their object had been to entrap him into the
affair, they could not have acted better for that purpose.—
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He need hardly remind their
Lordships of the passing of the Bequests Act, which contem-
plated the existence of the Catholic bishops. The First
Lord of the Treasury (Lord John Rnssell), in
every way that was possible, had led the Pope
to believe that he was giving no offence in the late act.
In 1844 that Noble Lord had said that he saw no
reason why Catholic bishops should not call themselves by
the titles of the sees over which they presided ; and in
another speech the Noble Lord further said that nothing
could be more absurd and puerile than to prevent the as-
sumption of such titles.--(Hear.) Again, in '4B the Noble
Lad was asked a question by an Honourable Gentleman,
and he (Lord Aberdeen) agreed in every word of that