The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-07 00:00:00

PAPAL AGGRESSION.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S MEASURE

Lord J, RUSSELL, amid the most profound silence,
rose at twelve minutes past five o'clock, to ask fur leave,
pursuant to the notice ha had given, to bring in a
Bill to prevent the assumption of certain eccle-
siasticle titles in respect of places in the Unio.d
Kingdom. The Noble Lord said:' Mr. Speaker,—lt
is with considerable anxiety that I now approach
the important subject which I have promised to bring
under the consideration of the House. The deep in-
terest which is felt in the country by all classes of persons;
the numerous petitions that have been presented to this
House, praying the House to resist any encroachment
on the part of a foreign Sovereign; the addresses which
have been presented to the Crown—all make it a matter
of deep responsibility to undertake the task of bringing
such a question under the notice of the House. Sir,
that anxiety is not diminished, but increased, by the
symptoms which appeared the other evening of the dis-
position of a great portion of the House with respect to the
motion I laid on the table of the House. One Hon.
Gentleman (the Member for Sheffield), who spoke on
the motion for the Royal Address, warned me not to
take a retrograde step on this subject—(Hear)—and
another Hon. Gentleman (the Member for Birmingham)
warned me, on the other aide, not to intro-
duce anything less than a complete code
to regulate all the relations which may occur be-
tween the Court of Rome and her Majesty's subjects in
the United Kingdom. Now, Sir, with respect to the
first observation, that I should not take a retrograde
step, I will say that the only retrograde step I pro-
pose to take is that natural action of a man
who finds a blow aimed at his head, and who steps back-
wards and raises his arm and puts himself in a posture of
defence.—(Cheers.) With regard teethe other obser-
vation, I will not now enter into the consideration of
why I differ from the Hon. Gentleman, but in the
course of the speech that I shall have to make, I shall
have to address those observations to the House which
appear to me to belong to the subject, and state those
motives which iaduce the Government not to pursue
that course which he has suggested as the most proper.
Sir, in bringing this subject before the House I beg
the House to recollect some of the circumstances
which had occurred very recently. In the course of the
last year the nomination of an archbishop in Ireland
by the Roman See was made in an unusual manner.—
(Hear, hear.) It was generally understood, and has
never been contradicted, that those who were usually
elected to the office of archbishop on the part of
the Roman Catholics of Ireland, had sent three names,
but that instead of any of the learned ecclesiastics being
chose❑ for that office, a clergyman who had been long
resident in Rome, and who was more conversant with
the habits and opinions of Rome than the state and cir-
cumstances oil! eland,was appointed by the Pope to assume
the office of Archbishop in Ireland. No doubt that
ecclesiastic showed very clearly that it was not his in-
tention to follow the usual practice which bad hitherto
been pursued by Archbishop Murray and others, of
putting himself in communication in relation to any mat-
ters necessary to be tranacted in England with regard to
the Irish people. Presently we found that the synod had
been called at Thurles. It was stated that at the synod
a question was put whether or not an address be issued
to the people of Ireland, and that that motion was car-
ried by a majority of 13 to 12, the majority of one con-
sisting in that very person who had been sent
over from Rome, and who was entirely un-
acquainted with the people of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
If the proceedings of that seised had related only to
the internal discipline of Rome—if it had been shown
that its proceedings only referred to matters that re-
quired alteration and amendment in the Roman Catholic
Church—however unusual, and entirely without prece-
dent, the:assembling of synod might be—for no such thing
had taken place since the time of the revolution—l should
not have telt surprise at the manner i❑ which the se nod
had acted. But a great portion of the address which the
synod had issued was taken up by two subjects. The
one was the danger of the system of education by the
establishment of colleges in Ireland by her Majesty's Go-
vernment, in conformity with an Act of Parliament,
and it stated that the principles upon which
those colleges were established were principles which
were opposed to the inflexible nature of the Roman
Catholic religion, and it was poiuted out in the address
!hat these colleges could not exist without destroying
the morals and religion of the Roman Catholic youth.
The other part of the address was taken up with a de-
scription of the poorer portion of the peasantry of
Ireland, with respect to the manner in which their
landlords had dealt with them, and no language
was omitted that could excite their feelings against
the owners of land who had enforced the process of the
law against their tenants. Now, Sir, lam not going
on 'the present occasion to enter into a defence of the
establishment of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, nor
to discuss the question whether the Irish landlords have
acted with discretion or humanity in asserting their legal
rights, but I wish to point out to this House this most im-
portant circumstance, that on a question of occupancy
of land, the synod, composed entirely of Roman Catholic
ecclesiastics, from2whieh all the laity were excluded—
that Synod had thought proper, at their first meeting, to
issue an address to the Irish people on what, was their
duty to, and what ought to be their conduct towards,
their landlords.—(Loud cheers.) I will ask the
Honourable and Learned Member for Sheffield
whether this was entertaining and considering purely
spiritual concerns. —(Loud cheers.) I would ask him
whether this House and the Government of this coun-
try can see a Catholic archbishop‘appointed and a synod
called together—whose first proceeding was to hold
forth to the people of Ireland, its opposition to an Act of
Parliament which had been "'passed for the purpose of
educating the people of Ireland, for the purpose
of educating the poorer and middle classes of society,
and also exciting the minds of the peasantry of Ireland
against their landlords.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, this is an
instance at all events to show that the synod did not
deal with purely spiritual matters. The interference of
elerical persons with the temporal and civil concerns of
the State has been attempted ror the first
by this synod in Ireland, not as a
beginning not to be followed up but as
a beginning to be maintained and followed up, and to be
asserted on Jtiture occasions with more potent effect.—
(Loud cheers.) There is a part of this transaction to
which I will direct the attention of the House. I re-
ceived a copy of this address, and on the title-page
was signed by the Archbishop of Armagh as Primate
of Ireland. About the same time I received
a communication from the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
a communication to the Effect that the matter had been
referred to those conversant of the law, and they had
said they could not do anything in the matter, as the
words did not appear upon any document
aunt to them. I will refer to an occurrence
which took place some time since in Sardinia,
L had been the law of that country that ecc:esiasties
were not liable to civil tribunals. Some time ago, the
Sardinian Parliament at Turin altered this law,
making the ecclesiastical courts liable to civil courts.
One of the Ministers who had brought in this law, and
who had given his name to it, being questioned on
the subject by the Archbishop of Tuam, replied in a
manner which was not satisfactory, and it is known
that he died without receiving the sacraments of the
Church, in fact as one out of the pale of the Church.
That is an instance of spiritual power and spiritual
censure for the purpose of controlling and directing
a Minister of the Crown and a Member of Parliament,
in his conduct relating to that Crown and Parliament.—
(Hear, hear.) I beg the House to observe these things
because they are not altogether foreign to us; they may
not yht be introduced to us this year, but we are told
in that country to which I have alluded that the doctrines
of the Church of Rome are inflexible, their maxims
unchangeable.—(Hear, hear.) They may not think it
expedient to introduce such practices at present into
this country, but they retain in their own hands tho
power of applying those measures and that spiritual
power. About the same time a manifestation of Romish
interference took place in Belgium, a Government which
had shown more favour to the independence of the Ro-
man Catholic body then any other country in Europe,
because they had allowed the Roman Catholics
to enjoy their right of appointment to benefices, while
the civil Government entirely retrained from interfering
with the nominations of the ecclesiastical body. The
ecclesiastics, by expedients of their own, had managed
to got the direction of the educational system of Belgium
into their hands; and when the civil Governmeethad taken
some steps to interfere with this subject a document was
circulated by the ecclesiastic bearing upon the question
at the time when an election was anticipated for the
purpose of influencing the chambers. The chambers,
however, came to no decision nnfavourable to the Go-
vernment, and it was thought necessary to instruct the
Belgian Minister at Rome to assure the Secretary
of State that no disrespect had been intended to
the Court of Rome. Now I come to the pro-
ceeding in this country. At the end of Septem-
ber, a letter apostolic, sealed with the fisherman's
seal was received in this country altering the ecclesias-
law of this country, altering the ♦icars apostolic, and
proposing to establish an archbishop and bishops among
whom the country was to be divided. Sir, I shall
afterwards state the view which I take of that document.
what I wish to state now is, that that change was made
entirely without the consent, and, I may say, without the
knowledge of the Government of this country.—(Great
cheering.) I had stated in this House, in answer to a
question from an Hon. Member, that I could not approve
of any such scheme. I had been told by a private friend,
of the Roman Catholic persuasion, that such a project
was in contemplation, but I had told him
that I should never consent to such a pro-
ject being curried out. I heard nothing more of it,
and I concluded perhaps weakly that the Government
of Rome being a friendly Government, and would
never think it possible to create archbishops and blehops
and of dividing this country without communicating at
least that project to this Government.—(Hear, hear.)
1 could not believe that it would have insulted
the Queen.—(Great cheering, which continued for some
minutes.) It appears that 1 must have been mistaken.
I have eeen in a letter, or supposed letter—(Hear, bear)
—of Cardinal Wiseman, at least in a publication ascribed
to that personage, that the Earl of Minto was cognisant
of the measures which were in progress, when he was at
Rome, for the establishment of a Romish hierarchy in
England.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of Minto has given
a public and emphatic denial to that statement.—(Louti
and continued cheering from all parts of the House.)
I am told that the Earl of Minto was present with the
Pope when this design was in agitation.—(Hear, hear.)