The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-26 00:00:00

EVENING,

it been introduced, would have been rendered nugatory by
that of the Noble Lord. The Legislature exempted the
Scottish Episcopalians from this restraint, and now the Noble
Lord was practically imposing it. He could not accept the
exemption with gratitude. He was acquainted with many
excellent Scotch Episcopalians, but he had no desire that
an exemption by civil privileges an: toleration should be
'created for one class of men from which others precisely in
the same circumstances were to be excluded.—(Cheers.) But
did that Bill prohibit territorial* titles? They prohibited epis-
copal titles, but not territorial titles. There were others
who divided the country into districts besides Episcopalians,
and Wesleyans divided it into circuits.—(Cheers and cries of
"Oh, oh !") He knew the meaning of that cry, and would
deal with it in its proper place. Only one thing at a time.—
(Hear, hear.) He was saying that they did not prevent ter- '
ritorial titles, because not only were the Wesleyans, but be-
cause in England and Ireland there were bodies called
Presbyters and Synods, having just as much territorial
titles as these bishops of the Pope.—(" No, no," and cheers.)
There were in Scotland persons professing the same religion
as the people of England, and.in England persons professing
the Presbyterian religion of Scotland. They divided the
country into districts, assigning, in the first instance, epis-
copal titles to bishoprics, as, for example, the Bishop of
Glasgow, while in England there was the Presbytery of
London, strictly as binding as any in Scotland. If they
made the distinction because in many countries in Europe
bishoprics were connected with the temporal interests, the
Presbytery was, on the same ground, open to the same ob-
jection. He took the Bill according to its professions. Its
proposed object was to prevent Romish aggression. The
Secretary for Foreign Affairs regards it as an extension of
the Act of 1829. He protested against such a desecration of
it. The clause of the Act of 1829 went to defend them
against the usurpation of the ultra existing sees, well known
in the House, and carrying with them many most important
incidents.—( Hear, hear.) The person who should assume
the title of the Bishop of London would be a pretender to a
title endowed with great advantages and temporal rights.
The question now arose whether they would allow a title to
be assumed, which interfered with no one and invaded no
rights, and represent it as an extension of the Act of 1829.
It was for them to prove that the rescript of the Pope was
of the temporal character they described it to be, but he
had. heard. nothing.which proved that to be the cass. Of the
parties who defended this Bill, or rather the opinion that
there ought to be legislation on the subject—some said the
Bill went too far, while others said it did not go far enough.
These parties were involved in an inconsistency in defend-
ing this position, when they described what took place in
foreign countries, where they said that the people were re-
duced to the lowest stage of degradation from the influence
of the Roman Catholic religion, and at the same time '
alleged that they had no intention to prevent the fair
progress of that religion. The argument went too far.
If they had to contend with a spiritual system, they must
meet the strength of a spiritual system with the strength pf
another spiritual system, and not by a penal enactment.—
(Hear, hear.) It was argued by the Noble Lord the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, that there was in this case the distinc-
tion that these titles were conferred by a foreign power.
Well, he would inquire how far would this carry them?
When they had persons, subjects of this country, who ac-
knowledged this spiritual authority, how were they to in-
terfere with them? He would not deny that there might
be temporal matters under the guise of spiritual affai-s, but
they could not say because they were derived from foreign
authority that they ought to be deprived of them. They
should show that they were not spiritual matters, but
temporal, under the pretence of being spiritual. When
they had arrived at that conclusion, then there would arise
a reason for their interference. No one had as yet said
that the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics should be
restricted. The Attorney-General distinctly maintained
that they were entitled to equal freedom. Then he asked
the question whether this act was spiritual or temporal ?
Religious liberty required that Parliament should not step
within the sphere of religion?. He did not mean to say
that it had not a right to interfere in the affairs of the Es-
tablished Church, which derived advantages and privileges
from the State; but the right was so limited with regard to
religious bodies uneudowed and unconnected with the State.
What, he would ask, was the amount of the proof adduced
that the rescript of the Pope was of a temporal character?
The only case you test was that set forth by the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, who stated that the appoint-
ment of bishops was not a spiritual but a temporal act.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had said that was the
opinion of Mr. Twiss.
Mr. GLADSTONE, in continuation, said he should like to
know if the Noble Lord adopted that opinion.—(Laughter.)
If the appointment. then of bishops was a spiritual act, they
had no right to interfere. If it was a temporal act, why did
they exempt the bishops of the English Church in Scot-
land, and not place the nomination of those bishops
in the Crown. He wished to see how the Government
could extricate themselves from that dilemma. He called
upon them either to strike out that exemption, or to place
the nomination in the hands of the Crown. The Attorney-
General spoke of excommunications, and the deprivation of
benefices. If parties in these matters went beyond the
sphere of spiritual matters, they would have a right to deal
with it. He would ask, however, were the Roman Catholics
the only parties who used excommuications ? They were
common in other religious communities. They were re-
sorted to by the Dissenting bodies, and were used by the
Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and in the Free Church.
What he wanted was not proofs of insulting language hav-
ing been used, or that the Roman Catholic religion was
exclusive, but what he wanted was proof of the temporal
character of the rescript, and if that could not be furnished,
there was not a shadow of reason for the principle laid
down for this Bill.--(Hear, hear.) Then there was the
canon law of which so much had been said. He would
take the canon law of Boniface the Eighth and Honorius
the Ninth. The Attorney-General disclaimed the opinion
that this Bill would exclude synodal action. He would call
upon Hon. Gentleman who were prepared to vote in favour
of this Bill because it would prevent syncdal action, to re-
collect when they went home that this Bill would not ex-
clude the canon law. However this law might increase the
power of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, that
was their affair • (Hear, hear)—and there would be no reli-
gious freedom if Parliament undertook to interfere, and re-
gulate the, internal disputes of religious bodies. Religious
freedom consisted in the right of parties to frame a system
for themselves, from Mormonism upwards ; and if, when
parties in these bodies found themselves rubbed and fretted,
they were to come to Parliament to set them right, their re-
ligious freedom would be endangered.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") The Roman Catholics were free men, and would act
for themselves.—( Hea-.):They did not want y our protection.
They repudiated it. What they wanted was, that you should
let them alone.—(Coeers from the Irish Members.) He
might ask, what hal the Roman Catholics now? They bad
that which was considered the very worst part of this canon
law. That which gives too much power to the Pope, and
does not infuse enough of the constitutional principle into the
Church. The system was susceptible of the constitutional
principle. In a hierarchy bishops had privileges as against
the authority of the Pope. The Pope would not deprive a
diocesan bishop without that, and an incumbent was in the
same position with regard to his bishop ; whereas at present
the Pope was, with regard to the Catholics of this country,
complete master without any limit.—(Hear, hear.) Every
man was now subject to his arbitrary authority and unli-
mited power, presenting a power as completely arbitrary
as could exist.—(llear, hear.) He could remove a bishop
or priest at his will. This arbitrary power could
not be better expressed than in the words of the
Canon of Boniface VIII. and Honorius IX., which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman referred to, and which declared—
" That it is necessary for salvation to believe that
everybody is bound to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Wherever bishops were introduced, it must tend alike to
equal rights and to equal organisation, and give a certain
degree of freedom even as against the Pope.—(Hear.) He
confessed it wounded him, as a member of the Church of
England, to see this hierarchy spreading over the country,
but that was a totally different matter from invoking the
secular arm.—(Hear.) He might be wrong, but he supposed
that if proper investigation were made, it would be found
that the law was. 'hat all ecclesiastical jurisdiction should
be vested in the Crown. If that were so, no exception could
be made in favour of particular sects. The Toleration Act
might be an exception, but he apprehended that that would
authorise the exercise of no such power, for instance, as
that used by the Wesleyan Conference, when they deter-
mined upon the expulsion of Mr. Dunn and Mr. Griffiths.
In 1725 Bishop Gibson wrote a letter to the Duke of New-
castle, then Secretary of State, representing that certain
ministers of Massachuse•ts had intimated to the Governor
of that colony their intention to meet in synod. The
Duke of Newcastle referred the letter to Lord Hard-
wick, who was Attorney-General. The law officers
of the Crown gave it as their opinion that her
Majesty's supremacy extended to the colonies, and that it
was not lawful f r the clergy to meet without the Royal
licence. That showed that this power to prevent the meet-
ing of synods extended to all sects, and even to the colonies,
and those law officers, to avoid even the appearance of ad-
mitting the legality of the proposed synod, suggested that,
if the ministers assembled, they should be dispersed by force.
No Act of Parliament had been passed since to the present
day giving express legality to synods. If that were so, and
if this doctrine was now to be applied to the Roman Catho-
lics, it must be applied to all other bodies, and not to them
alone. They must not have a partial and exceptional appli-
cation. He agreed with the Noble Lord that of late the ex-
treme party in the Church of Rome had gained the ascen-
dancy. The moderate party had been declining. He agreed
with the Noble Lord upon these facts, and joined with him
in sentiments of deep regret at this state of things.
They thought that in opposing the introduction of a hierarchy
they were endeavouring to repress Ultramontane principles.
He would show them the very reverse was the fact. His
assertion was that since the Reformation there had been two
parties in the Roman Catholic Church, and their history was
very different. Since the time of Queen Elizabeth the bulk
of the clergy and laity had pursued one line of policy, and
the Jesuits and the Court of Rome another. The former
party, which might be called the moderate party, had ever
been struggling for this measure of diocesan episcopacy. The
extreme party in the Church of Rome, who were represented
by the cardinals around the Pope and the Jesuits, had all
along been struggling to resist this measure, and now he
asked them to grapple with the facts he should
give them. He would show them that since the
time of Elizabeth the majority of the laity and clergy of the
church of Rome had been struggling, and often with the
countenance of the Government, to obtain diocesan episco-
pacy; and could anything be more gross than for the Go-
vernment now to interfere, and say we will introduce what
will prevent 4,QU, the moderate party in the Church of Rome,
from succeeding? Reference had been made to Mr. Palmer,
and that theologian had twitted the Catholic theologians in
the discussion, by telling them, " You are no Church at all,
because you have no diocesan bishops." When they wish
now to have bishops, and become a regularly constituted
Church, our own theologians and others seek to prevent it.
The Roman Catholic laity and clergy had all along been
struggling to obtain this measure with the sanction and
countenance of the British Government, who had throughout
opposed vicars apostolic, and encouraged the efforts to obtain
diocesan episcopacy. This could be proved upon the autho-
rity of Mr. Dodd, and the well-known Mr. Butler, and
the equally well-known Roman Catholic writer, Perrington.
Directly the penal laws were repealed, the question of
bishops was again sought to be raised, and efforts made to
conciliate the mind of the British Government. The great
mind of Pitt had a definite opinion upon this subject, and
they should not be ashamed of marching under his banner.
He was of an opposite opinion to the Noble Lord.—(Hear.)
When he looked back to the prophetic sayings of that great
man, lie found in them lessons of wisdom, which would, if
considered, help them to solve many of the difficult
questions
now pressing upon them. After referring to the opinions of
Mr. Pitt on the subject of the Catholic disabilities, he stated
that in 1790 it was deemed advisable by the Catholics to
send Mr. Hussey as a deputation to Rome, and one of the
great objects Mr. Hussey had in view was to endeavour
to
pelaeveeteri()3ywge feoirergythe_
—ofanbdisbhoep:dvieen
ieordinary,dtiiet
the Legislature
of the change, and second. that 1
(a "Heoai clergy—Gear, mh
eeanrt)
appointment on two grounds ; first, that the Government ap-
proved,would soon require thsaitrcrtils
thing happened when eCt; Hb?ppnrsdleey.,wasilliet Romesa
he endeavouredte
o facilitate
withdrawn,t enhead thatrrange diocesanmest that
iicars-
apostolic should b
bishops
should be appointed m their stead.
clergy t
il Itm might
case w
ht b esa thatidettid bief
the bishops were appointed by
greatly altered. He (Mr. Gladstone) would wish that; and
• the appointment of diocesan bishops was a step to it, and to