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

SUN,

LONDON,

t dKing the titles of their sees. How, then, could the Noble
Lord now propose the present Bill? He regretted much
that the "No Popery " cry had been again raised in this
country; but, while their attention was turned to Rome, a
most serious inroad was being made on religious liberty, and,
when he looked at the language that was heard in that
House and elsewhere from persons who called' themselves
stanch Protestants, he was puzzled to discover what the de-
finition of a stanch Protestant might be. He confessed that
when he heard the speech of the Honourable Member for
Warwickshire, who was then in conversation with his Ho-
nourable Colleage —Arcades ambo—(Laughter)—and that
of the Hon. Member for West Surrey, in which they
called themselves stanch Protestants, he was forcibly re-
minded of the intoxicated soldier in Goldsmith's " Citizen of
the World," who, while struggling against the walls of a
church, exclaimed, " I am the only true friend of the Pro-
testant Church, and I will stand by you, old gal."—
(A laugh.) Such was the feeling of the stanch Protestants,
and the country would render to them what they were
worth. But if they were to hear these vituperative state-
ments, and such a desecration of all that Roman Catholics
held solemn, he would recall to the Hon. Gentleman who
made them the words of Mr. Burke, who said that if mere
dis'ent from Rome was a merit, he that dissented from it most
was the most meritorious ; but on many points the Protes-
tant agreed with the Roman Catholic. That man, there-
fore, was the best Protestant who protested against the
whole Christian religim.— (Hear.) And when he read the
speeches that were made at public meetings—the speech of
the Lord High Chancellor at the Guildhall, a speech of post-
prandial excitement—(A laugh)—and the speeches that were
made in the Court of Aldermen—he could not help recalling
to his mind the old story of the oysterwomen who locked up
their fish baskets and called out "No Popery." When he
read the speeches of the Sir Peter Laurie of the present day
he could not help recalling to his mind the days of 1688,
when a Sir Peter Laurie of that time, the Chamberlain of the
city of London, declared that precautions ought to be taken for
fear the citizens should rise some morning with their throatacut.
When, too, he heard the speech of the descendant of a man
who was so violent against the Popish plot of 1678, he was
reminded of a short speech made by that great ancestor of
the Noble Lord the Member for Bath on that subject; be-
cause, disguise it how they would, and in spite of the sanc-
timonious air of the Noble Lord, his speech really was the
same in effect. That great ancestor of the Noble Lord said,
"he would not have so much as a Popish man or Popish
woman allowed to remain here ' • not so mush as a Popish
dog—no, nor so much as a Popish bitch—(Laughter) —nor a
Popish cat, to purr and mew about the Queen ;" and the his-
torian added that the speech met with great prai-n and ap-
probation.—(Hear, and laughter.) And on the platform and
in the pulpit there had been a revival of cries which he
thought were obsolete in this country. He grieved to see
the walls chalked with the words "No Popery," and to
hear men who knew better revive the accusation made

years ago against the Catholic doctrine in the service
of ordination, founded on the words contained in it—
" Ikereticos ego persequar et expugnabo." Did not the
Hon. Member for West Surrey recollect that the ward "per-
sequar" meant to proselytize, and notto exterminate? But,
even if it were not so, those words were not in the Catholic
oath ; they were struck out in 179 l ; and when Hon. Gentle-
men were so sensitive on the subject of an oath, let them look
at the oath taken by King William and Mary. King Wil-
liam swore that "he would root out"- rather a strong
phrase—" all heretics and enemies to the true worship of
God who should be condemned by the true word of God of
the aforesaid crimes from the land and empire of Scotland."
And the writer, Stewart, of Perth, said that those who
followed the Popish religion ought to be put to death.
What did the Hon. and Learned Member for the city of
Oxford say to that? Was a persecuting Church confined
to Roman Catholics? It was the genius of all religions esta-
blished by law, and he called to mind the saying of a great
writer on the question, who said that persecution was not an
original feature of all religions, but it was a marked feature
of all religions established by law —( Hear, hear.) There
was, however, a very grave question remaining behind. The
Noble Lord at the head of the Government in his letter
alluded to the state and teaching of the Church of
England. and how far did our Universities conduce to the
purity of that teaching?—(Hear, hear.) Was it not no-
torious that the doctrines of the Church of England
were almost as diverse as the parishes of England—that in
one parish you might have ecclesiastical infallibility insisted
on ; in another the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures ; in one
dioceses the articles were taken in a natural sense, and in
another diocess in an unnatural sense; the one bishop re-
lied on tradition, another on the Bible? Go to Pimlico, and
there auricular confession was practised ; but at Liverpool it
had been said that he who practised it ought to be punished
with death. But, he askal, whom were the laity and clergy
of the Established Church to look to ?—(Hear.) The Bishop
of Oxford, in answer to an address to him, denied that
there was any Tractarianiem among the clergy of his diocese ;
and what did he do? He appointed Dr. Pusey, who was the
gre itest fisher of men for Rome, preacher at the University
church. And if they camels. this metropolis, they found
that the bishop of the diocese was ready •to allow candles
on the altar, provided they were not snuffed on Sunday.—
(A laugh.) He wished to know what was to be the guide
to whom the laity were to turn on this question ? They
would be more obliged if, instead of this Bill, the princi-
ples of the Reformation had been recurred to, and their
own Church had been reformed ; and they would be still
more obliged if the Honourable Baronet the Member for
Oxford, instead of raising the cry of " Stop thief " against
the cardinal, would overhaul the whole ecclesiastical sys-
tem. What was the University system? It was notorious
that the greater portion of the students were drugged
with the many-evil-influence it was notorious that the
great body of them were mock-turtle Romans. —(A laugh.)
What was Dr. Hampden opposed for in 1838? Because he
denied the authority of tradition. What decided the last ap-
pointment to the Professorship of Poetry? Not the merits
of poetry, but the principles of Tractarianism. He very
much feared that while our eyes were turned to the Vatican,
Oxford was taking us in the rear—(A laugh)—and that it
was not these pastorals from the Flaminian Gate—which
might be insolent, but at least were open-but the writings
that proceeded from Oriel and Christ Church that were to be
dreaded; for the latter were not only insinuating, but insi-
dious. It was from within, not from without, that the ene-
miles of the Church were to be feared ; and if protection had
been the bane of agriculture, he was strongly of opinion that
protection had been the bane of Protestantism.—(Hear,
hear.) The Protestant Church, like Cwsar, had great power•
and dominion; but she might be fated to be laid prostrate,
like him, by the hands of false friends and disguised assassins.
He said that the country looked for a thorough reformation of
the Church of England—not a commission, such as had been
issued to inquire into the system of the Universities, but
something that should throw the Universities open to Dis-
senters. The Church of England wanted strength from that
quarter; and he could not but call to mind the almost re-
markable prophecy of Hallam on the subject of ecclesiastical
power. He said that ecclesiastical, and not Papal, aggres-
sion was what the laity had to dread; and, though it might
suit some zealots of Rome to try in that quarter, yet the true
enemies of the Church were high church principles. Sooner
or later that question of the Church of England must be
taken up, and the Universities of the land must be reformed.
But if he assumed, for the sake of argument, that some mea-
sure against Pepal aggression for the defence of the country,
and essentially a Protestant country, was necessary, he
wanted to know what pretence there could be for including
Ireland in this measure—how the Hon. Gentleman the At-
torney-General for Ireland recommended it. Up to the pre-
sent time Ireland had been exhausted by misfortunes. Her
sectarian differences were dying away.— (Hear, hear.) The '
only aggression in that scountry was the aggression of the
paid Church of the minority. But even that was tolerated
and the people were engaged about the payment of rates
rather than in theology, they were speculating more about
potatoes than the Pope.. But this measure had excited the
old odium of a theological question again—(Hear)—and it
had done more, it had- given to the priests their additional
power.—( Hear.) Had it been recommended at any county
meeting ir. England that Ireland should be included in this
Bill? It might be said that the Protestant bishops of Ireland
wanted it, but, from the time of Primate Boulton, who ever-
thought of ruling Ireland on the suggestion of the bishops?
Had any Protestant meeting in Ireland called for the inclu-
sion of that country in this Bill? There was one; and he
would tell the House what else that meeting was called for. It
was held at the Rotunda, the Exeter Hall of Dublin, onthe 29th
of January, 1851. The account in the newspapers stated that
the room was much crowded, and that there were present
the Earl of Roden, Lord Clancarty, Lord Naas, and others.—
[Lord NAAs—" I was not there."]- (A laugh.) He gave
the Noble Lord great credit that he was not there, for if he'
had been he never would have remained in that room, the
representative of the Roman Catholic county of Kildare, and
heard the statements that were made. Well, prayers were
said, and the Doxology was sung, and wherever that was the
case the House might be sure that some most uncharitable
opinions were expressed.—(A laugh.) It was moved that;,
Mr. E. Grogan take the chair, on which there was the
" Kentish fire," and " More power to you. Grogan" ; and'
what did that meeting ask for? Mr. Grogan said that all
this had come about in consequence of the Government
putting Roman Catholics into office. Mr. T. Wallis made a
speech abusing Lord Clarendon, and the Earl of Clancarty
condemned the present system of national education and the
grant to Maynooth, and thought that Roman Catholic
bishops should not be allowed to take their -titles, and the
Rev. Mortimer• O'Sullivan, a gentleman who went starring
it in the provinces—(A laugh)—called for the reenactment.
of the old penal laws, saying that while they had those
laws Ireland was quiet and without disturbance.—(A laugh.)
That was a sample in Ireland of the allies of the Noble Lord .
at the head of the Government on this question. Was the
Noble Lord ready to do away with the National Board of
Education, with the grant to Maynooth, and to re-enact the'.
old penal laws? But the Noble Lord on the previous night-
said that other measures might be necessary in case Roman
Catholic ecclesiastics excommunicated persons supporting the
civil powers, and the old question of the Synod of Thurlei
was revived. But he was not surprised to see Roman Catho-
lic ecclesiastics opposing education except of a particular'
sort. Professor Sewel, fellow and tutor of Exeter College,
had published a book called "Christian Morals," in which*
he developed the same theory; and his orthodox Friend the
lion. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford,'
speaking of the colleges in Ireland, said that the whole pro-
posal seemed to be that the instruction should be based on
this world; that it was a gigantic scheme of godless educa-
tion, and that they ought to carry out the same principles
of education which the Roman Catholic prelates advocated,.
making religion the base of all education whatever; and
that lie did not blame the Roman Catholic bishops for adopt-
ing that doctrine on that part of the subject in its fullest
extent. He also held in his hand a protest signed by nine
bishops of the Established Church of Ireland, protesting
against the National Board and that system of education.
There were the Protestant bishops of Ireland, so inveterate
against the national system, that any unfortunate clergyman
who favoured that system was certain to get no preferment •
from them. One of the Right Rev. Prelates, he of Cashel;
had gone so far as; to call the national schools "Devil's
schools ;" yet this was a prelate pocketing 5,0001. per annum
from the nation, with large patronage besides, and particu-
larly small congregatioas to look after.—(Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) The same nice, mild, benevolent gentleman, on the
same occasion, denounced the Noble Lord, by reason of the
national schools, as the blind head of a mock-liberal Go-
vernment. —( Hear, hear.) Well had it been lad down by
Mr. Burke that until men were in a frame of mind to re-
spect that which was respected by others, they were not in
a fit condition to make laws for them. Who, after all, were
the real bishops of Ireland? Not the Bishop of Cashel and
such as be, bu'. the BP dales and the Cullers, call them by
what name you please ; call them Italian monks, if you will,
though this was by no means a judicious designation to come
h rd( , H
a esa riled been hear.)
from the Treasury bench, the law officials upon which had
much better be turning their attention
_to what was doing by
Thethe Italian meofn kthiewpheoeplived f
lartelaOnxd
gfort—ti
counselled by Mr Burke, than whom no man better knew
that country, be cherished as a great good, not tolerated as
an unavoidable evil. He opposed the Bill as unnecessary
and mischievious in itself, and, above all, as a violation of
that principle which he as a Protestant venerated—the right,
namely, of private judgment.— (Hear.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE said it was impossible for him not
to perceive thar the whole of this agitation was created by the
Noble Lord on the Treasury bench.—( Hear, hear.) He had
raised the "No Popery" cry, and when defeated in Devon-
shire, he attributed that defeat to the raising of the "No
Popery" cry by others. He would ask the Noble Lord one
question—had he not had a conversation with the Bishop of
London, and when the latter expressed himself strongly