The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-11 00:00:00

power— powers of ordination and confirmation episcopal
powers which he exercised in ford conscienthr, but no powers
which he exercised in
,foro extern°. That was the distinction
to be borne in mind. There might be jurisdiction in spiritual
matters totally distinct from jurisdiction in ecclesiastical
matters—spiritual jurisdiction as opposed to temporal on the
one hand, and as opposed to ecclesiastical jurisdiction on the
other - spiritual jurisdiction not only over the one, two, or
three hundred individuals of the same communion which he
had had as vicar-apostolic, but also the more extensive Juris-
diction of the bishop of the diocese, for the bishop, os such,
claimed to exercise distinct and direct jurisdiction
over every person in his diocese. The distinction
was perfectly well known to. Dr. Wiseman.
The term diocese was well understood. It was a term
of true, of classic Latinity, and occurred in Cicero, when,
speaking of his government of a province, he mentioned
among the districts which he ruled the diocese of Cilicia.
The Roman Catholic Church had adopted that among o her
terms in use in the Roman Empire—it signified a local dis-
trict, including all the inhabitants residing there, and it was
always accompanied by a seda or principal town, which we
called a see. When then they talked of a Bishop of West-
minster, and a Bishop in Westminster, they did not mean
the same thing. Bishops of dioceses there could be none in
this country except by the authority of the Crown. Even
Roman Catholic authorities, Van Aspin, and others, declared
that the Pope could not anywhere create new secs or dioceses
without the consent of the Sovereign of the country. If so,
what consent had been obtained to that act by which the
Pope had taken upon himself to create dioceses and erect
new sees in this country ? All the Roman Catholics
understood the matter well. Thanks to the very strange
regulation lately made in France, they had the names of
the authors attached to the various articles published in
the journals. In the present case the regelatisn was of use
as giving the authority of a name of importanee on the sub-
ject to an article which had appeared in the Univers, where,
after quoting the Bishop of London's words that the brief
was a denial of the Queen's authority, of the English epis-
copacy, of the validity of our orders, and a claim of spiritual
jurisdiction over our whole Christian population, the writer
went on to say :—" The brief of Pius IX. is, in fact, no-
thing less than that. The Bishop of London exactly ap-
preciates its bearing. Just as St. Gregory transferred the
primacy from London to Canterbury—as Popes Boniface and
Houorious confirmed this change—so Pius IX. transfers to-
day the primacy of Canterbury to the now archiepiscopal
see of Westminster. It is by virtue of the authority be-
queathed to him by his predecessors that the Pope substi-
tutes for the see of London that of Southwark, and abolishes
all the ancient sees erected in England by the Popes who
have preceded him in the chair of St. Peter. Consequently,
from the promulgation of the brief, their exists neither see
of Canterbury, nor of York, nor London, nor any of the sees
established anterior to the Reformation. The personages
who shall for the future assume the title of Archbishop
of Canterbury and Bishop of London will be mere intruders,
schismatic prelates, without any spiritual authority." Was
there no insult in that ?—(" No, no," from an Hon. Member
on the Opposition benches.) Was there no insult in telling
them that the sees of London, Canterbury, and York, had
vanished, and that they had all been transferred to the mer-
cies of a cardinal archbishop? If any person in Ireland, not
being in a state of intoxication, should enter his Hon.
Friend's house and say he was master in that House; that
he claimed to possess it by by virtue of titles and authori-
ties far anterior to those of the Hon. Gentleman—dating
from times long prior to Cromwell—would not the Hon.
Gentleman have considered that an aggression—an insult? Let
them just see how they had always looked upon the matter.
The Church of England had always acknowledged the right
of the Sovereign in that respect—it never had created
a see otherwise than upon royal authority.
An Hon. MEMBER—The authority of Parliament.
Mr. P. WOOD—The Crown had the power of its own mo-
tive to create sees in the colonies. The Crown did not erect
sees in this country, because they already existed.
An HON. MEMBER—Manchester.
Mr. P. WOOD—How was Manchester created? A part
of the see was taken from that of Chester, a part from the
see of York, and thus the see of Manchester was created.
For the Crown had not the power to destroy sees; it could
not destroy the titles of Chester and York; therefore, an Act
of Parliament was necessary, not for erecting the new see,
but for the purpose of taking parts from two other sees to
make it up. But where there was no see in existence, as the
Cape of Good Hope and other colonies, there the Crown
erected sees at once, and so did the Pope within his own ju-
risdiction. He (Mr. Wood) cared not how many sees the
Pope erected in Romagna. The Pope bad never been allowed
to do so in this country at any period, and he (Mr. P.Wood)
hoped the time would never arrive when he would. He
(Mr. P. Wood) would, however, go further; he would unhe-
sitatingly say that the attempt to create sees in England on
the part of the Pope was an assumption of that which could
only be legally done by the royal power, in respect to
titles, dignity, and jurisdiction, an offence against the
common law. A man oould be indicted for holding
a court feet—one of the lowest courts in the
country—as an offence at common law in usurping the
rights of the Sovereign. The offence committed by the
agents of the Pope in this matter was, therefore, equally
indictable. Cardinal Wiseman and those acting with him
had clearly infringed the statute 16 Richard 11., as well as
13 Elizabeth. To say the Act of 1829 abrogated these
statutes was a complete confusion of its purpose. The, object
of that Act was simply to say that the titles of existing sees
should net be assumed, because it would be insulting to those
who held those dignities; but the object the House had now
to deal with was not this—it was, on the contrary, to decide
a graver and a wider question—the question how far they
should allow any person to set up again in this country that
power which had already disturbed Europe, and which might
disturb it again at any moment, so inscrutable were the ways
of Providence.—( Hear.) It was sought to be shown that
the case under discussion was analogous to that of the
appointment of a Bishop in Jerusalem and of a Bishop
of Gibraltar; but of all the monstrous misrepresentations
of Cardinal Wiseman, the most monstrous was that
in which he laid it down that the patent of the
Bishop in Jerusalem—for he was not Bishop of Jeru-
salem—was the same as that of the Bishop of Gibraltar.
The Bishop in Jerusalem had only jurisdiction in that patent
over such churches as placed themselves under his control,
within certain limits therein defined ; whereas the patent of
the Bishop of Gibraltar erected his jurisdiction into a diocese
—and very properly too, because it formed a portion of the
Queen's dominions. He (Mr. Wood) did not look upon the
act as that of the Pope, but as the act of his advisers. He
was surrounded by those unfortunate men who had led to his
expulsion from Rome—the cardinals—and these men, ima-
gining to hide their want of strength, by creating confusion,
advised him to this aggression upon England.—(Hear.) But
this was not the only aggres,ion that had been committed by
their advice. On the 6th of January, 1848, the Pope issued a
similar incendiary rescript to the churches of the whole East,
in which he attempted to extinguish their patriarchates. He
(Mr. Wood) had read extracts from the Encyclical epistle of
the four great patriarchs in reply to that rescript, in which it
was treated with the same contempt as the present document
is now treated by the people of England.—(Hear.) It was
urged in Mr. Bowyer's pamphlet, that it was all a mistake
to suppose that there was any aggression in the case ; for
that if this letter of Pius IX. and the bull of Gregory XVI.,
respecting the vicarates apostolic, were placed side by side
they would be found in all respects identical; in fact, that it
was a mere matter of form. But he (Mr. Wood) asserted
broadly that such was not the case The bull of Gregory
XVI. spoke of the Catholics in England, not of the Catholic
Church ; and even them it appointed vicars-apostolic. But
the brief of Pius IX. spoke of the Church as extinct for 300
years, said it was about to revive that Church, and decreed
and ordained that England should again flourish. There was
nothing of all this in the bull of Gregory. The bull creating
a bishopric in Galway, which had been called to recollection
by the existing excitement, could not be held as a sufficient
proof of similarity. The case of Mr. Bowyer, therefore, was
a fiction. But it was said by the Hon. Member for Sheffield
and others that the question at issue was entirely connected
with spiritual matters, and that all this excitement was
about "a poor harmless priest" coming over to this country
from Rome on these matters. How the Roman Catholics
would like this way of putting the question he (Mr. W.)
did not know ; but he believed they generally went on
high grounds on these questions.—(Laughter.) What,
however, did he (Mr. Wood) find? In the strange
document issued by the cardinal a document
calculated rather for the meridian of China or India than of
England—it was seen that he spoke of this country being
received into its place among the constellations of the Church
—restored to the firmament, as amid the centre of unity, the
source of jurisdiction. England was now, it appeared, to re-
volve round the Pope as regarded jurisdiction. The claim
of exercising jurisdiction over the whole Church in England
by means of bishops, instead of over the Roman Catholics in
the country by means of vicars-apostolic, made manifest to
him (Mr. Wood) a clear intention on the part of Rome to
bring back England to the state he which it was 300 years
ago, with all its evil consequences.—(Hear, hear.) They
were told by those who upheld this act of Rome that they
should not revive obsolete statutes ; and it was true that the
opinion of the Attorney-General was against trying the parties
under a disused law. The law officers of the Crown, however,
were clearly of opinion that the law existed, and that the law
had been transgressed, and they only waived it because it
was never popular in this country. to try under an obsolete
statute. The Cardinal and his friends, relying on not being
tried under an old statute, demanded loudly to have the
law enforced ; but when they found that there were private
individuals ready to carry out that statute, if they only ad-
mitted certain facts necessary to commence a prosecution,
they declined the proceeding. This, in itself, was an ad-
mission of transgressing the law on the part of the Cardinal.
Until, therefore, the question was tried, he (Mr. Wood)
should hold that the statute was violated, and he could net,
consequently, admit the proposition under .discussion to be
ex post facto law.—( Hear, hear.) The Cardinal, however,
let out why he wanted the measure of the Pope to be ac-
complished. It was a very different thing to be Archbishop
of Westminster and to be vicar-apostolic of the London
district. England was created a province by the Papal brief.
Of this province Cardinal Wiseman would be archbishop, and
the several bishopswould be within his control. Unless there
were sees there could be no synodal action, and unless there
was synodal action in the Roman Catholic Church, the
canon law could not be introduced. To introduce the canon
law was what Cardinal Wiseman wanted. But the canon law
bound those who obeyed it to disobey and set aside all civil and
municipal laws which were at variance with its provisions.
That being so, who would venture to say that the question
to be decided by Parliament was not one of the most grave
and serious nature, which could not be avoided except
by a neglect of the most solemn duty? He (Mr. Wood) had
been considerably pained by the observations of the lion.
Member for Manchester, when that Hon. Member said that
the present was the proper moment for an onslaught on the
Church of England; and he fully agreed with the Hon.
Member for the University of Oxford, who asserted, on the
contrary, that of all other times none could be so inap-
propriate.—(Hear, hear.) The Church of England was one
of the great living institutions of the country.—(Loud
cheers.) He (Mr. Wood) went with the Noble Lord
in his opinions respecting the scandalous con-
duct of those who held preferments in the Church
when their hearts were weaned from her doc-
trines, and who continued to officiate in her edifices, and
uencepeNrY‘i,lei
pervert
th
theth e r position, oetfi, a
other guasevethte influence
to
(Loud cheers.) He felt convinced that not one Roman
Catholic gentleman who heard him—he spoke not of priests
—was other than disgusted at the conduct of these indi-
viduals in that respect—administering in one Church, while
they were preparing to pass over to another. These cir-
cumstances excited just indignation in the minds of all
right-thinkieg men, and so far he (Mr. Wood) would go with
the Noble Lord, that they should be put an end to. But he
could not agree with the Noble Lord in going all lengths and
every length to purify the Church, because he believed that
there were many most estimable men who stood in the
middle of the line and touched neither extreme, and whose
ejection from the Church would be a cause of great disruption
among her members. With respect to the perversions from
the Church, he thought the evil had been exaggerated.
The Roman Catholic calendar, which was sure to scrape
together all it could, only showed within the last nine
years a defection of seventy clergymen among 15,000.
This was lamentable, no doubt, but it could not be held as
a justification to go all lengths, as suggested by the Noble
Lord, or indeed to any length which would lead to a disrup-
tion of the Church. lie (Mr. Wood) denied that the course
proposed by the Government was a course of retrogradation.
He denied Also the amnion of the Hon. Member for Shef-