The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

it suited'the objects of Rome. One thing was certain, that if
there were, indirect power in the acts of the Pope, they could
always be turned to temporal account. They had it in his-
tory that the Roman Catholic nations of Europe had taken
care to resist the temporal ;power of the Pope, even though
they were ready to bow to him in spiritual matters, and
that their own Roman Catholic ancestors had resisted that
power; and were the Protestant people of England now,
in the face of such acts, to submit to his attempted en-
croachment ?—(No, no!) It could not be denied, that,
by means of vicars- apostolic, which had been so long in
operation in this country, the objects of the Roman
Catholic religion were amply provided for ; and it
had been shown by the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, that
the Roman Catholic religion had greatly expanded under
that order in the Church in this country. In the reign of
James I. there was but one vicar-apostolic in this country ;
in that of James the Second there were four; and in 1840,
there were eight. He would now take his information as to
the objects of the Pope from a Roman Catholic dignitary—
Cardinal Wiseman says that the object of the Pope was to
apply the canon law to England ; and he (Mr. Walpole)
believed that the fundamental object was to give the Pops
temporal power in this country, and " dominion over kings
and over kingdoms."—(Hear, and No, no.) Mr. Hal-
lam, in his work on the canon law, had told them that pas-
toral or spiritual power, meant also temporal power. Now,
if he (Mr. Walpole) understo ,d the canon law, under " vicars-
apostolic" the Roman Catholic inhabitants of this country
would be governed by the same laws as the other subjects of
the Sovereign ; but under " bishops in ordinary," the Roman
Catholics would be governed by a law which was not applicable
to the rest of the community, and they would be at issue with
any other portion of society which would not acknowledge the
spiritual power of the Court of Rome.—( No.) He had paid
much attention to the subject, and he should be glad to be
refuted ; but if not refuted, the question was not merely one
of vicars-apostolic and bishops in ordinary, but rather a ques
tion whether the Pope's law or the Queen's law was to go-
vern.—(l-Tear, hear.) Having gone through those three
questions, the next question was, whether the people of this
country had reason to complain of the step taken by the Pope.
He was of opinion that they had, on three grounds; first,
because the Papal brief, if acted on, was contrary to the law
of nations; secondly, because it was utterly opposed to the
law of England; and thirdly, because it was repugnant to
and inconsistent with the spirit of their institutions. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to show that
no person could, without the consent of the Crown of England,
accept of any title in this country, or do anything for any
foreign power, unless by the Queen's permission ; and for
that reason it was that a certain law was passed, entitled
" misprision," which was intended to deal with any attempt
to bring into contempt the Queen's Government or the
Queen's title. In addition to that law, the statute of pre-
snanire was passed, and the introduction of " bulls " into
this country was prohibited, not because it was appre-
hended that they would interfere with the Established
Church, but because they were found if a nature
to absolve British subjects from their allegiance. He
admitted that the laws of this country in reference to
the admission of bulls into this country, were in a most un-
satisfactory state, and they ought to be so altered as, while
they could be administered with regard to the internal affairs
of the Roman Catholic Church; they should be opposed
when they in any way affected the civil rights of the sub-
ject. (Hear.) His Right Hon. Friend the Member for
Ripon asked, the previous evening, if they were going to op-
pose by legislative measures the Papal aggression ? and his
Right Hon. Friend had answered himself, and said that their
ancestors were wiser than they were, for they bad not done
so. He was astonished when he beard his Right Hon.
Friend make this statement. He thought he might have
found, in his reading of the history of this country, that the
encroachments of the Bishop of Rome were constantly mei
with opposition from this country, and this opposition, ex-
cept in a few instances, was always successful. He knew it
was said that Cardinal Wiseman, in his pastoral, had spoken
of England again moving round its own orbit of religion ;
but England's only orbit was around the Crown as its source
and centre.—(Hear.) When St. Augustine came to this
country he claimed the obedience of the Catholic people
of this country to the Pope • but Desiderius, the
part of the people, said " Let the only obedience
they owed to the Pope was charity. He ad-
mitted that subsequently, when the Conqueror ob-
tained certain advantages from the Pope, that the head of
the Church of Rome obtained three things—first, that eccle-
siastics should be placed beyond secular jurisdiction; se-
condly, that in all ecclesiastical matters there should be an
appeal to Rome ; and, thirdly.ithat the bishops of the Church
should pay homage to the Church of Rome. But subse•
quentiv these privileges were very much (pi dified, the power
of the -Court of Rome, in reference to these three points,
g eatly curtailed. It was true that King John, in
a dastardly manner, gave up the advantages which the
English Church had obtained, and consented to pay a tri-
bute of one thousand marks to the Pope ; but when Edwaru
the Third was called on to pay this tribute, the Parlia-
ment of that day objected to the payment, and if it were
attempted to be enforced they would resist the at-
tempt to the death.—(Hear, hear.) The consequence was
the payment of the tribute was not enforced. Then came
the statute of prwniunire which was directed against the
temporal power of the Pope, and this showed that
the Church of England stood out in contradistinction to the
Church of Rome where territorial rights were claimed by
the latter Church. So things remained until the Reforma-
tion, when the power of the Pope in spiritual as well as in
other respects completely ceased in this country. So mat-
ters remained for the next century and a half, when the
contest between this country and the Pope was resumed
through the bigotry and folly of James ll.—(hear.) And
those times were not very dissimilar to the present times.
Then, as now, the plea for aggression was conscientious.
Then, as now, the Nonconformists were taunted with
abiding wi-h the Church but then, as now, the Noncon-
formists declared they would stand by those wh r would up-
hold the Protestant religion.—(Hear, hear.) The result
was that the contest ended in the political prostration of the
Roman Catholics, and it was not until 1791 that they a-
t lined any political power, and it was not till 1829 that they
were entirely emancipated from all political disqualification.
Thus Roman Catholics were excluded from power, not on ac-
count of their religion, but purely upon political grounds;
and, if they wished for religious peace, they could only en-
sure it by abiding by the settlement effected by the Act of
1829. But if that measure was:to be made a means of en-
croaching on the rights of the Crown—if all the securities
which it imposed against the power of Rome were
to be taken away—and if Rome was always to be an aggres-
sive power, they would then say that it was time for the
people of England to declare their determination to abide
by the faith of their fathers, and to teach the Court of Rome
that if it thought it could adopt this course with impunity,
it strangely misunderstood the faith and feelings of the Bri-
tish nation. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") He now came to the
ouestion of how they were to deal with this aggression, and
here he would observe, in reply to the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir James Graham) that the Government had acted wisely
in not attempting in the present state of the law to prosecute
those who acted under the Pope's rescript. It was most un-
wise for the Crown to prosecute where there was the
slightest chance of failure.7-(Hear, hear.) But if they had
done so, they would not have touched the gravamen
of the offence, which was the Papal rescript ; and
the only way to meet this was by a protest, and
by a movement against it, and lie knew of no
other way to do this except through them, the represen-
tatives of the nation in Parliament assembled.—(llear, hear.)
After referring to the contrary views entertained by the
Right Hon. Member for Wiltshire (dir. Sidney Herbert),
and his Right Hon. Friend Sir James Graham, in reference
to the measure before the House, although they both con-
curred in objecting to it, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
proceeded to say that, when the Bill went into Committee,
he thought it would be clearly shown that the first clause
of the Bill did not in any respect infringe upon religious
freedom, and that it did nothing more than maintain the
supremacy of the Crown, and that it did so in self-defence.
He agreed that they should maintain a just toleration, and
if the clause was shown to be an infringement of tolera-
tion, it ought to be thrown out. But there were other prin-
ciples as important as religious toleration— namely, that
the sovereignty of the Crown should be upheld— (Hear,
hear)—the purity of our faith should be kept sacred that
the law of nations should not be violated by foreign powers,
and that the rights and privileges which they enjoyed
should be handed down to posterity in all their integrity.
Unless they maintained all these things, they would not
legislate either for their own conduct or for the benefit of
the Church, or for the country generally. But what was
this toleration which was spoken of? It was not the toler-
ation advocated by the Roman Catholics. He would quote
his esteemed friend—and he was proud to call him so—Mr.
Bowyer, on this subject.— (hear, hear.) His able and
Learned Friend justified the conduct of the Pope on the plea
of toleration, but he described toleration as " something
more thou the equality of civil rights ;" and what was that
" something more than the equality of civil rights ?" It
clearly meant the establishment of the power claimed by the
Pope, and the ultimate ascendancy of that power.—( Hear,
near.) near.) That was not the toleration to which thepeople
f
England would give their assent. What was the toetoleration
which the people of England would eonlar byl (this
perfect freedom of re'igious action, dsB.'. (Hear,
maxim—" Sic utere tuo ut non
hear.) But the Right Honourablaelialim4;ent
g " Volenti
Graham) capped this maxim by the fob" James
y or insult were
non fit injuria"—urging that no
offered, where there was no intentionintj
id therefore the maxim
:1.-do so. But they
were willing to submit to the in.iary'ld
quoted by the Right Hon. Baronet not applY.—( Hear.)
to say a word or two
He hoped the H .use would allow notof setting
indignation
on the Bill. He thought it was defective in
in the preamble of the Bill the expressionpact to this aggression
which influenced the people
(Hear, hear.) He would ilslnhtr:e;i at the constitutional prin.
would be fully carried out
ciple of the people of this country
their creed and country
against such encroachmen
Roman Pontiff, for such affgres-
through the emissaries of the
anif„tly opposed to the authority
sion he considered to bem
of this country. That was
of the Queen, and also to t.e
h
he considered that the Noble Lord
one of the ways by male itchteendpeedopteo.
—act(
istaisr-,
(Lord John Russell)
factorily to the wishesfeelingsanudidaetifh
oef
make any
hear.) He would not on
the present occasion
allusion whatever to other
tmhaatntetros cooffnenrecitled i
with
theon thatite
Ro-
man Catholic religion more
ago:Tienreattihoyn
thofe
NthoehlocaLnoornd,laaws
and th
the synodical action
guardede
shou d be especia y
uch would t d
the toleration of s en to aubvert the freedom of
and the Constitution of the country. It might
the Q'irn •
d as itfrequently had, that there was no apprehen-
be argueentertained from
' to be the exercise of the canon law,
sign
that he should
but to
vation the people of
entitledthis country to make such a
demand from the Noble Lord— ( Ilear)—and for that reason
he would support the second reading of the Bill, believing
that it w better than no Bill at all ; and he should also
add as
that, when the Noble Lord's Bill had passed, it should
be carried into effect as soon as possible.—( Hear, hear.)
For let them depend upon it, if, as they had sometimes
done, they passed a law and then let it remain unnoticed
and disregarded, such a course would be most delusive.. It
would be worse—it was a mockery of legislation. To use a
lawyer's expression, they would make themselves accesso-
ries after the fact to whatever offence had been committed.
Whatever happened, they must not do that—
" We must not make a scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape till custom make it
Their perch, and not their terror."
(Hear, hear.) Of all the courses the Government could
pursue, that was the worst. If these events, painful as they
were, should teach them no other lesson than that, they
would not he without benefit—namely, that the just admi-
nistration of the law was not less important than the law
itself; nay, further, that the administration of the law would
be fruitless and unavailing of itself it it was still to be ac-
companied by a course of policy which encouraged the
offence it was meant to prohibit. There was only one sub-
ject which lie wished further to notice. They had heard
much about religious persecution, as if it were persecution
to defend themselves and repel a hostile invasion. They had
heard much about the duty of preserving religious peace ;
but religious peace could not be preserved unless both par-
ties withdrew their forces, and prepared to stand on
neutral ground. It was not by them religious peace
had been violated. They could never forget by whom
and how it was it had been assailed. They must not, under
the plea of conscience, bring into this country rules by which
the inhabitants would be subjected to foreign law and juris-
diction. They mat not attempt to shako their allegiance,