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

SATURDAY

upon the act of the Pope, had not the Noble Lord said it
was of no consequence whatever, and did not his views
wonderfully change in a very short time? He had reason
to believe that this conversation did take place. He disap-
proved of the calumnious language used against the Roman
Catholic Church. The Standard, that admirably con-
ducted paper, declared that the standard of the Popish
plot was revived in London, and its excellent mother,
the Morning Herald, complained that the servant maids could
not walk out for fear of meeting Jesuits at every corner.—
(Laughter.) The Rev. Dr. M'Neile had said that Popery
was the Devil's compound. and that its worship was the wor-
ship of the Devil. That excellent and amiable gentleman
said that all Roman Catholics should be executed, and even
the Hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had
not scrupled to talk of that distinguished scholar, Mr. Faber,
as a scoundrel. They talked of having pursued a concilia-
tory course of policy towards Rome. But had the Noble
Lord attended the lectures of Gavazzi, when his language
was tolerated and himself patronised by many influential per-
sons. There was not much manifestation of friendship to
Rome. He thought, however, that these prelates should not
take up titles without the consent of the Queen ; and he
should, therefore, support the Bill. He bore testimony to the
admirable conduct of the Roman Catholics under circum-
stances of great irritation. and while advocating his own
views he fully expressed his sympathy with them.—(Hear.)
Mr. C. FORTESCUE had voted against the introduction
of the Bill, and wished in a few words to explain the ground
upon which he opposed it. He thought the lamentable
scene of last night ought to be a warning to all politicians
to avoid the dangerous and holy ground on which they now
trod. He believed that no party pretended that the present
measure would add to the efficiency of the Church either in
England or in Ireland. He regarded the continuance of
the Established Church in Ireland to be indefensible, except
perhaps on the principle of quieta non movere. They had
been told that they were bound to defend by legislation the
rights of the Crown and the independence of the nation. If
a Spanish Armada were on our shores, or a Roman Catholic
insurrection is Ireland, he could understand people talking
about rights aid independence ; but used as those words had
been in the present case they appeared to him to be totally
without meaning. The spiritual power of the Pope depended
entirely on the acknowledgment of it by Roman Catholics,
and how it could interfere with our independence, until the
consciences of men were first subjugated to that belief, no
one bad pointed out. No proof from precedents had been
adduced to Stow that the Crown possessed the right of
appointing bishops to a church not in connexion with the
'state. In former days when the Monarch exercised that
right England iias a Roman Catholic nation; but now the
Romish Church stood in a differ-nt position in this country.
The true successor of the Romish Church in this country
was the Church of England, which had inherited the
rights and the duties of the ancient Church, and towards
which the Sovereign stood in a relation analogous to that in
which former Sovereigns stood towards the Roman Catholic
Church in this country before the Reformation. To say
that the episcopal act of the spiritual superior of a certain
religious body within this country, not in connexion with
the State, was en aggression on the prerogative of the
Crown, appeared to him to be purely an anachronism. It
was the radical defect of the Elizabethan system of Church
government that has made no di tinction between things
spiritual and things temporal. He did not deny that in
the minds of many an aggression had been committed
against the Church of England, but he believed it was of
such a character that the House had nothing to do with it—
that it was spiritual, and rested upon theological grounds,
of which the House could take no cognizance
whateve . They all knew that the Roman Church univer-
sally held—and so did many of the clergy of the Church
of England—that there could only be one bishop in one see,
deriving his power by a certain mysterious succession in
the apostolical clain. It was, therefore, in his opinion
'beyond the power of the State to say whether Lord J. Beres-
ford or Paul Cullen was the spiritual Archbishop of Armagh.
The aggression on the Crown was imaginary, and the ag-
gression on the Church was beyond their power to meet.
'He admitted that there was an individual as well as a na-
tional independence, and that same day the House might:be
Called on to consider that question. He had great hopes
that the public opinion in this Protestant country, and the
public opinion of the Roman Catholic laity, would keep
priestly power—of which no one had a greater dread than
he - within proper pounds; and that it would throw its pro-
tecting shield over such helpless classes as dying persons
_end young women. With regard to the present Bill he
should vote against it, believing it was founded on false prin-
ciples of church government; and that it would inflict the
deepest injustice on, the country with which he was more
immediately connected.— (Hear, hear.) He should vote
against it because he did not thiuk it represented the true
Protestant feeling of the country, or provided any security
,fpr the Protestant Chruch. Entertaining such a belief, he
could not consent td do anything which might revive the
dying thunders of religious intolerance.
Mr. CHILD asked the indulgence of the House while he
said a few words on . this momentous question. He ap-
proached the question with considerable anxiety, because
while be could not consent to refuse Roman Catholics the
'full profession of their faith, he felt he had a duty to perform,
not only to himself, but towards his Protestant fellow-coun-
trymen. He believed the House was now called upon to say
whether they would vote for the Queen or for the Pope.—
(Hear, hear.) The apple of discord in the present instance
had not been t' rown by the Queen, or by the Noble Lord at
.'the head of the Government, but by a foreign power—an
alien to this country—(Hear)—and on his head rested the
blame of all the unhappy difference and disunion which had
• arisen amongst us.—(Hear.) Now, when they were called
•persecutors, he could not but think that the evidence on that
subject was entirely the other way. He thought that any
parties who possessed and claimed such power as the Pope
did and Cardinal Wiseman could hardly call themselves per-
secuted individuals; nor could their hands be deemed ma-
nacled, which had suds a power of directing the course of the
political chariot.—(Hear, loser.) It appeared to him that
there were four distinct parties holding particular opi-
nions relative to that question. There was, first, the Roman
Catholio party, which no doubt felt a considerable degree of
irritation, which might be easily accounted for under the
-circumstances of the case. But he believed when the pre-
sent agitation subsided, and had passed away, the Roman
Catholics would see the inutility of the step taken, and would
again show that the noble and chivalrous devotion to the in-
terests of the country which had always distinguished them.
—(Hear.) There was a second party which strangely mixed
up traffic and corn and Catholics together; who thought that
to repeal the aggression of the Pope was to repeal the corn-
laws, and who considered Protestantism and a dear loaf as
synonymous terms.—(Hear.) The third party was that
which considered that nothing ought to be done in the mat-
ter, and that things should be left to themselves. And the
fourth party was the general public, composed as it was of
men of all persuasions and opinions. In conclusion, he
would call upon them to unite in one common bond in sup-
port of the Throne and the Constitution, by voting in favour
of the second reading of that Bill.—(Hear. )
Mr. W. GOOLD said, if the words of the Pope and the
Pope's supporters were to be taken against them, they were
bound to take their disclaimers also. Her Majesty's Soli-
citor-General had said, if no insults ware intended blame
Church of Rome, how was it that it had made no exption ? But the Learned Solicitor-General ought to know that
he who seeks equity must practice equity, and if upon that
principle the Government had taken the course it had done,
they could hardly expect the disclaimer which the Learned
Solicitor-General demanded. (Hear, hear.) Fle (Mr.
Goold) was of opinion that this country ought to have di-
plomatic relations with the Pope, and if they had, this mat-
ter would not have occurred. If the Pope had attempted to
'organize a hierarchy in any other country, he (Mr
Goold) believed it would have been a breach of
the naticnal compact. •He believed the Church of
England was not likely to suffer. He believed
there were many men in the Church of great learning and
great eloquence especially that visible eloquence
—the daily records of a good man's life.—(Hear, hear.) It
was to be regretted that there had been so much of theology
introduced into the debate, and after the scenes of last night
he might be permitted to express a hope that they would
never witness such scenes again.—( Rear.) He could not
help saying that the letter of the Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) had been productive of much evil, and that it had
greatly increased the excitement on the present question.
The Noble Lord should have looked before he leaped; but he
had done the contrary—he had leaped first, and the result
was that he had been looking ever since how to extricate
-himself from the humiliating position in which he was placed.
Considering, as he did, that an insult was neither intended
nor perpetrated in this aggression, and at least if it had, it
was an aggression such as that House could not deal with—
believing also, that this Bill was dangerous to the principles
of civil and religious liberty, and that though some portions
of it might be inoperative, as a whole it was fraught with
mischief, for these reasons he would vote against the Bill,
and he trusted its rejection would relieve the Ministry from
its present undignified and humiliating position.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. J. FOX said, at that stage of the debate he had
no intention to enter at large into the general question, but
merely to state his views on one or two leading points sug-
gested by it, and to expose a few of the fallacies he had
listened to. The principle on which he had come to the
conclusion to vote against the Bill, was not merely that it
was an abrogation of the liberties at present enjoyed by the
sect of Roman Catholics—that it was an abrogation of the
spirit and tendencies of the whole of our legislation
He with
respect to religious questions for the last 150 years.—( ar,
hear.) That principle could not be expunged, upon any
provocation with reference to any sect or church, without
damaging the position and invading, either directly or indi-
rectly, the rights of all other sects and churches in the same
position. This Bill was an interference with the rights of
all non-established churches. With established churches
they had a right to interfere, because they bartered, at
least, some portion of their independent action in return for
the power, emoluments, and influence granted by the State.
—(Hear, hear.) With a non-established church they had no
such right, and as he believed this measure tended to invade
the existing rights of every body of Protestant Noncom-
forrnists as well as Roman Cathol cs, he opposed it. In fact,
that was already done in this Bill, though they were told
that at a subsequent stage a clause was to be brought in by
which the objection would be obviated—a fact which showed
the fatal nature of the objection itself. It was found that the
Bill affected the Scottish Episcopalian Church, and a clause
was to be introduced by which it was to be specially ex-
empted.— (Hear, hear.) Now he thought the case of the
Scottish Episcopalian Church was not similar as respected
the titles of its dignitaries, but it had also, in other respects,
a strong resemblance to the case of the Roman Catholics.
(Hear, hear.) They were an episcopal church, placed in the
position of a dissenting body ; their bishops held territorial
titles, and justified them on the ground that there was a ne-
cessity.for these titles, in order to describe the limits within
which they exercised jurisdiction.—(Cheers from the Irish
Membem) Well, but in taking that title they were not pe-
cnliar; a bishop was simply an overseer—(Cheers) —and an
overseer must of coarse be set over some one somewhere,
so- that all churches might urge the same claim.—
(Hear, hear.) A document had been issued by the
Scottish Episcopalians, setting forth the reasons why
they should be exempted from the operation of the
measure; every one of which could be urged by Roman
Catholics. They stated that they held episcopal superin-
tendence to be an apostolic institution—that it was neces•
sary for the due government of the Church that territorial
titles were necessary to describe the episcopal office ; but
that these titles did not imply the assumption of temporal
jurisdiction, anything beyond the spiritual government of
their own community.—(Hear, hear.) When it was said
that the Roman Catholic Church went beyond this, and
claimed a right over those who were without its own pale,
lie must ask if the Church, which repudiated and denied
its claims, did not claim such rights for itself?—e Hear,
bear.) Because, if it did, he could tell them that there were
hundreds of thousands who would repudiate and deny any
such right over them in this country.— (Cheers.)
He asked what they were to do with the im-
mense masses of Dissenters—Methodists, Independents,
Congregatonaliets, and others, to be found in Lancashire
and the manufacturing districts? The title of bishop was
not a monopoly of any church. There might arise in this
country a Free Episcopal Church, as there had arisen in
Scotland a Free Presbyterian Church.— (Hear.) In order
to its full development, bishops would be necessary, and of
course titles must be taken by them. In that case such a
Church would have a ban put upon it from the beginning.
—( Hear, hear.) By such legislation they would deprive
Christian churches of their rights, not merely rights which
now exist, but they anticipated those which might come
into existence. The Moravians in this country do use such