The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-22 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING,

up the vigour of the demonstration. As far as this had
been a demonstration of sound Protestant feeling, he en-
tirely rejoiced and concurred in it. Ho thought it
highly satisfactory to witness it, and he thought
it of infinitely greater importance, and of infinitely greater
value to the preservation of the Protestant religion against
aggression, than such a wretched piece of legislation as this.
—(Hear, hear.) In this, however, legislation was seen to
have degenerated, as in too many other instances it had,
into a mere "No Popery" cry, and a blind hatred of the
Roman Catholic religion, with which thoughtless prejudices
he had no sympathy. Their Lordships would recollect
that shortly before the Revolution an excitement similar
to this prevailed for a considerable time—to use the words
of Macaulay, " the capital and the whole country at that
time went mad with hatred of the Pope, immediately upon
the discovery of the Popish plot." Their Lordships would
recollect that, though that excitement was as ephemeral
as the present, the country in a short time became
thoroughly ashamed of the delusion under which it had
laboured. When, therefore, he Voiced on the excitement
that had recently been manifested, lee thought of that which
prevailed at the time of the Popish plot, and was com-
forted. —(Hear, hear.) Now, the course which the Noble
Marquis opposite recommended the House to take was alien
to the course which he had pursued through a long series of
years. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) had, though differing from
him on most subjects, always supported him in those efforts
which he made on behalf of religious liberty. The Noble
Marquis, he was sure, was the last person in the world
knowingly to sueport or countenance anything which would
savour of persecution or harshness. There were those who
still thought of persecution, and the stake, and the scaffold,
but if they only considered the difference of the times, a
measure which then would have been regarded as liberal,
and even indulgent, would now have the character of a very
scanty measure of toleration. In dealing with religious sec-
taries, there was no middle course between a persecution
that exterminated, and a toleration that satisfied, the
weaker. They had for 00 long years done their utmost to
exterminate all Catholicity from this country, and they had
failed. They had adopted a new system, and for the last
twenty years they had made progress in extending the prin-
ciples of that toleration which they adopted when it was
ascertained that extermination was impossible. This Bill
now dealt with a matter purely spiritual; for the Noble
Marquis would not deny that the nomination of a bishop
was an act purely spiritual. If they denied to a Church its
regular government, they no longer tolerated that Church.—
(Hear, hear.) Did they mean, as this Bill would do, did they
mean to refuse to the Roman Catholic people of this country
the government of their Church by the regularly ordained
bishops?--(Hear, hear.) If so, he said they did not tolerate
that Church.--(Hear, hear.) Could they deny, either, that
an episcopal form of government was given to the Catholic
Church by bishops that it did aot enjoy under its vicars apos-
tolic? He would now refer to the statement of a Noble and
Learned Lord when he moved the repeal of a mass of odious
and disgraceful statutes, which still disgraced she statute-
book. In moving the repeal of those enactments, and
especially the 13th of Elizabeth, which prohibited
communications with Rome, he said that the denial of
communications with Rome for that purpose was a denial
of the want of bishops in the Catholic Church. If they
prohibited communications with Rome for that purpose, of
course they refused to tolerate the Catholic religion. No
Roman Catholic bishop could be collated without the au-
thority of a bull from the Pope of Rome, and many of
the observances of that Church required the same sanction.
He was, therefore, justified in inferring that the Roman
Catholics were allowed a communication with Rome for this
purpose, which, by this Bill, they proposed to take away.
To suppose any episcopal Church without bishops was an
absurdity— to suppose Roman Catholic bishops without the
authority of the Pope. was another absurdity. Provided
their appointment infringed on no existing rights—infringed,
he repeated, on no existing rights—the State, he apprehended,
could not interfere. This was a question of principle. They
could not suppose an episcopal Church to exist without those
rights and privileges which they would deny them. Their
Lordships maintained the apostolic succession of bishops.
But what would they think if that assumption was so
thwarted as to prevent their adherence to that principle in
the Church of England? He asked no more for the Roman
Catholic episcopacy than the State allowed for the internal
government of every other dissenting Church. His
first great objection to the Bill was, that it was mainly
at variance with the true interpretation of the
Catholic Relief Act. By the 24th section of
that Act, it was enacted that any party who should assume
the titles of any bishopric or deanery in England or Ireland,
should forfeit a penalty of 1001. The fair construction of that
was that the assumption of titles not possessed by the bishops
was not forbidden. That was a penal clause, and they were
bound to construe it strictly, and not extend it to that which
was not expressed. He was a member of the Cabinet who
drew that Act, and he bad been asked a hundred times why
the Roman Catholics had not bishops in England as in Ire-
land, but it had never occurred to him to say that it was be-
cause it was illegal. But he had another reason. The Act
enacted that no person should assume titles in England or
Ireland. No mention was made of Scotland. And why, because
there were no bishops recognised by the law in Scotland. The
Act itself was demonstrative of the intentions of its framers,
because it would have been just as easy to prohibit bishops
in Great Britain, as in England and Ireland merely. That
was his first objection. It was a breach of freedom, and a
violation of the rights recognised by the Relief Act. He
would not be a party to violate the privileges which he be-
lieved to be intended to be accorded by that Bill. But
what was the act that had been done? What was the head
and front of the offending ?. Was it not merely the convert-
ing vicars apostolic into bishops in ordinary ? He said it
was an act of regular administration on the part of the
Church of Rome. The Pope had a perfect right to con-
vert vicars apostolic into bishops in ordinary. It was the
substitution of a regular system for a system that was ir-
regular and exceptional. In what was a bishop different
from a vicar apostolic? Was there the slightest difference
whatever except for the internal government of the Roman
Catholic Church ? They must describe the man somehow.
The Noble Marquis talked of territorial titles as if it con-
veyed any rights or possessions. The idea was absurd.
There was nothing established in opposition to the Queen.
There was nothing established that was in opposition to and
not recognised by law. The hierarchy was constituted for
the purposes of their own internal government, and it had
no existence except in words, and could not operate in any
degree except upon those submittilg to it.—(Hear, hear.)
This, it was said, was the beginning of a despotic govern-
ment. But what was the fact? So long ago as the Go-
vernment of Mr. Pitt the change from vicars apostolic to
bishops in ordinary was desired. tut it was not confined to
Mr. Pitt ; Sir J. Throgmorton and other eminent parsons also
wished for this change. After that, was this rescript of the
Pope, conceding this desired change, a gross invasion of the
rights of the Sovereign of this county? Should it be con.
sidered as such? Towards us there was no change. To-
wards themselves only was there any change, and it was in
their favour, for the Pope had somewhat divested himself of
his power. The vicars apostolic were his mere deputies
and agents, and removable at pleasure; but he could only
remove bishops in ordinary for canonical offences, and they
were, consequently, much more independent. But the
Noble Marquis had discovered that this act was illegal
by an ancient law. They had for this purpose revived a
statute which had slept for 2 0 years, and which, during
that period, so far as its practical application was con-
cerned was unknown. The statute of prmmunire had no
application to the late rescript of the Pope. It was his in-
terference with temporalities that induced the passing of
that statute, and to remove the grievance protested against
by the Commons, in the time of Ricbard 11. It had, th.re-
fore, no application to the case now under discussion. By
this Act, every bishop appointed by the Church of Rome
would be an unlawful act. That would lead to most de-
plorable consequences; marriages, ordinations, and other
spiritual acts, would, as a consequence, be rendered unlawful.
He could not even conceive the consequences which must
result from so deplorable and tyrannical an act. He would
next come to consider the violation as was alleged of the
supremacy of the Crown. It had been said that the Crown
was in peril, and they were called to the rescue, but he
did not believe there was any danger. He wanted
to know how this supremacy of the Crown had been in-
vaded. In the address presented to the Queen by the bishops
of the Established Church various modes had been adopted to
describe the Papal aggression. First the address to the
Queen said it was an unparalleled insult offered to the Queen,
and to the Church of which her Majesty was the head.
That, however, was altered, and after a little reflection the
Right Reverend Bishops fell back upon safe grounds—they
fell back on the 37th article of the Church, which they had
all signed, and which meant something, although it could not
be exactly ascertained what it was.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
The Queen was addressed as the head of the establishment
in this realm, whether ecclesiastical or civil; but the exact
limit of that supremacy was not defined. Now he would re-
mind their Lordships that when the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government sent up a Bill in '49 to introduce the
Jews into Parliament, that Bill went to repeal the oath of
supremacy. If, then, supremacy was a matter or so much
importance, it was rather disrespectful to bring in a Bill to
abolish that supremacy.—(Hear, hear.) In Scotland there
was no recognition of the Queen's ecclesiastical authority, and
when they had seen that the people who deny her eccle-
siastical supremacy were among the most devoted and the
most loyal of her subjects—when they saw that the people
of Scotland of all denominations utterly rejected that supre-
macy, they should not so quarrel with the act of the Pope.—
(Hear, hear.) They must not forget that prelacy was
abolished in Scotland, and that the laws against it were
more severe than the laws against Catholics. But they
were told, also, that the prerogative was invaded by the late
act of the Pope. But how, he asked was that ? If the Pope
nominated bishops to sit in that House. or did anything to
interfere with the prerogrative of the Queen, that would be
different.—(Hear, hear.) But they ignored the existence
of the Catholic bishops, and practically there was therefore
no interference with the Queen's prerogative. They had
agreed to give full and ample toleration to every de-
scription of her Majesty's subjects, and they did that know-
ing that a Roman Catholic bishop could ntioetabr,e nhaemare.)d, ex-
ceptHe by the authority of the Pope.--(
must say, that to complain of the act of the Pope
was to complain of his existence, because the ap
p office.
(Hear, of the bishops was inherent in his
hear.) Those who were at all accustomed to the
appointments were
hear.
Romish Church, knew that there was Thllenagr,parhteicanr.l,l;
rmasctusecdomipnlaminaekdinogf.—th(eCraipesp
Tinhetiatee
used en all such occasions, and to say that they meant any
insult to this country was preposterous.—_(ear
If there was really offence in the act of the Pope,
it was one which should have been proceeded against,
diplomatically or otherwise. He knew it would be said
that her Majesty's Government would be precluded from
taking that course by the Bill of '4S, which was passed
for the purpose of enabling this country to enter into
diplomatic relations with Rome, and in which a clause
was introduced to prevent the reception in this country of
any Nuncio of the Pope; but there was nothing in that
am
which would prevent intercourse on that subject.. Let them
Pr
looussik aa t
but noN Prussia. Dcio iplowasreceived matic relations wert
ehe in
saineta was maintained
theher
, and , un
case, as we understood the Noble Lord to say, with Russia
and Hanover. He contended, therefore, that there was no-
thing to prevent England taking the course he had alluded
to. He thought he was right in the course he pursued at
the time he had alluded to in 1848, and he was still of opi-
nion that they ought not to receive the Pope's nuncio in
this country. In the treaty of Vienna there was a special
exception made in favour of the nuncio of the Pope, and
that would be the case in this country ; if they had a nuncio
of the Pope, he would take precedence of the other ambas-
sadors in this country. In the present affair he really thought
the person who had most right to complain was the Pope
himself, and if their object had been to entrap him into the
affair, they could not have acted better for that purpose.—
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He need hardly remind their
Lordships of the passing of the Bequests Act, which contem-
plated the existence of the Catholic bishops. The First
Lord of the Treasury (Lord John Russell), in
every way that was possible, had led the Pope
to believe that he was giving no offence in the late act.
In 1844 that Noble Lord had said that he saw no
reason why Catholic bishops should not call themselves by
the titles of the sees over which they presided ; and in
another speech the Noble Lord further said that nothing
could be more absurd and puerile than to prevent the as-
sumption of such titles.—(Hear.) Again, in '4B the Noble
Lord was asked a question by an Honourable Gentleman,
and he (Lord Aberdeen) agreed in every word of that

answer, which was admirably reasoned, and had strength in
every word. The Noble Lord ( Lord John Russell) said in
that answer that he did not know that the Pope had any
authority to constitute . bishops and archbishops in this
country. He had not given his consent to such appoint-
ments, and would not give it. But with regard to the
spiritual power of th e Pope, whatever control was to be ob-
tained over the spiritual authority of the Pope could only be
obtained by an agreement to that end. They must give
advantages to the Pope, and have advantages in return,
and among them they must stipulate that the Pope
should not appoint to dioceses in this country without the
consent of the Queen, or they must say that they would
not have anything to do with the matter. For his own part,
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) went on to say, that he
thought they ought not to have any arrangement to recog-
nise the appointments of the Pope. Now, from this lan-
guage, he (Lord Aberdeen) inferred, and he thought cor-
rectly, that there having been no agreement with the Pope,
he did not require the consent of the Crown in the late
appointments.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then referred
to the announcement made in the Roman Gazette, in Janu-
ary, 1848, to the effect that Dr. Wiseman had been appointed
Archbishop of Westminster. Such an incident could not
escape observation. The Noble Lord (Lord Minto, as we un-
derstood) could not have overlooked so important a fact, and
it was matter of moment that the announcement was made
officially in the Gazette of Rome. As to the Bill before them,
he would ask how was it to affect their fellow-countrymen
in Ireland ?—(Hear, hear.) Their Lordships were aware
that the rescript of the 29th Sept., 1850, only related to the
appointment of bishops in England, and therefore their in-
terference in Ireland had been thought to be uncalled for;
and it was urged that if they were determined to legislate
ogainst what was called an aggression, that legislation should
be confined to England. But he must agree so far with Go-
vernment, that if the Act was to be passed at all, it must in-
chide Ireland—(Hear)—for to say that the Queen held a
different position in England to what she did in Ireland,
would be to sign the destruction of the Church in Ireland.—
(Hear, hear.) A measure, however, which must be so in-
adequate, must produce mischievous consequences in Ireland.
If they passed the present Act, unless it became a dead letter
in the statute-book, they would never see peace in Ireland.—
(Hear, hear.) He would now say a few words as regarded
the penalties imposed by the Act, and he could not help
saying, that if they attempted to impose the penalties in
Ireland, they might apprehend that serious consequences
would be the result. They might have a refractory priest,
for instance, turning an informer against the bishop who en-
forced the ecclesiastical discipline binding upon his clergy,
and in a hundred other ways it would lead to end-
less mischief and complaints on the part of those who might
be subjected to those penalties, while, on the ether side, there
would be complaints if the law was not carried; into effect,
and we should have a renewal of that discord, anbetosity, and
rancour from which we had been free for the last twenty
;wears, and which it was sickening to think we should ever
have again in this country.—( Hear.) He would not detain
their Lordships longer, and was aware that he should not
have their concurrence in the sentiments he had expressed,
or the motion with which be would conclude. He could
not help expressing his deep regret at the absence of two
Noble Lords, and at the cause of that absence—(Hear)
—two Noble Lords both of them the long tried advocates
of civil and religious liberty, but who were prevented from
being present by the state of their health. He felt how ina-
dequate he was to express the sentiments which he held in
common with them with regard tit the measure of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers, and only wished that their Lordships could
have been persuaded by the mild wisdom of the one, and
the fervid eloquence of the other.— (Hear.) The Noble Earl
concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that
day three months.
Lord BEAUMONT said he was placed in a situation of
pceuliar difficulty in attempting to convey to the minds of
others the impressions which these acts of the Pope had
made on his own mind. His difficulties had, however, been
partially relieved by the speech of the Noble Earl, inasmuch
as many of the points relied upon by the: Noble Earl as dif-
ficulties in the case would be found to be completely
visionary. Another reason urged by the Noble Earl, which
had contributed to relieve his mind, was that the indulgence
shown to the Roman Catholics in this country in former
years, was some excuse for the Court of Rome taking the
course it had done. He thought, on the contrary, that in-
stead of an excuse it was an aggravation—(Hear, hear)—
and that the indulgence previously extended to Roman
Catholics would be an inducement to the Court of Rome to
abstain from everything offensive, either to the feelings of
the people or the dignity of the Crown —(Hear, hear.) He
would allude to these psints more fully, but before doing so
he had to express the pain with which he felt compelled to
take the cousre he did on this question. He stood alone
and isolated from the members of his own community, for,
although he knew there were many who felt and sympa-
thised with him, but who did not come forward openly to
express that agreement and sympathy, he was, however,
prepared to take all the consequences of his position. He
was aware that there were distinctions drawn between the
civil and religious powers, and that it was said in the recent
acts of the Pope that he had not trenched upon the former.
He was prepared to meet all these objections, however often
they might be repeated ; and he solemnly declared that he
believed he was right in principle, that he was right as a
loyal subject, that he was right as a Christian, and right he be-
lieved betore his God, in the course he took on this question.
In doing so, he laid down the same principle as he believed
was laid down by the Noble Marquis below him. He said he
would do nothing by this Act which would infringe in the
slightest degree one iota on the civil and religious liberty of any
individual whatever, which would interfere in the slightest
degree with the freedom of any religious body, or which
should in the slightest way trench on the spiritual character
of the Roman Catholic Church, or the spiritual necessities
of the Roman Catholic clergy.—(Hear, hear.) He would
look in the first place at the position in which Roman
Catholics were placed before the necessity arose for pass-
ing this Bill ; and, in the next place, to the position in
which the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic
priests would be placed by farther legislation. Previous
to the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act, the ex-
ercise of the Roman Catholic religion was limited in
this country as far as individuals were concerned, but
since the passing of that law no interference whatever
had been allowed with any religious act. The Roman
Catholic in this country enjoyed the freedom which he
wished here still to enjoy, but which he certainly did not
enjoy even in some Roman Catholic countries, of wor-
shipping where he pleased and when he pleased.—(Hear,
hear.) He was in every way a free agent, and he (Lord
Beaumont) wished that a free agent he should remain.—
(Hear, hear.) What was the position of the Roman Catholic
Church in this country? With certain exceptions, it might
almost be called, not a tolerated, but a sanctioned Church,
There was not one rite that a religious: community could
desire which was not enjoyed. The Church services were
full, and administered by duly ordained priests, deacons, and
bishops. They could have even bishops and archbishops or-
dained by the Pope of Rome. Every freedom was given to
the Church to communicate with Rome with respect to
church administration and church affairs. In short, the
members of the Roman Catholic Church did all they wanted
without let or hindrance. It had a perfect hierarchy, and
might have had if it chose, what he feared it never would
get from Rome, a regular domestic hierarchy.—(Hear,
hear.) He wished to take away none of these powers. He
would leave to that Church every privilege it had, and he
would be glad to get in addition that regular domestic
hierarchy to which he attached se much importance. But
he would ask, could any religious body be placed in a more
favourable position which was not an established and domi-
nant Church?—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to give them
all the liberty they could desire, except the liberty of de-
priving others of their liberty--( Hear, hear)—or the liberty
of attempting to deprive the country of its rights, the
Crown of its prerogatives.—( Hear, hear.) As individual
liberty was limited by the condition that we were not to in-
fringe on the liberty of others, in the same way the liberty
of a church was founded by the condition that it should
not destroy the liberty of other Churches, and the liberty of
this country must be dependent upon its complete inde-
pendence and freedom from foreign power. There must
be no power within this realm to coerce or interfere
with the free actions of the people other than their own
legislation and their own institutions. (Cheers.). This
led him to the definition of spiritual and temporal, because
it was on that ground that the whole question settled.
He wished to know what change there was in the spiri-
tual character between the position of the bishops formerly
and as they would be under this measure? He knew
that language had been held on this subject which he
could only call bombastic language, and which raised ex-
pectations that could net be fulfilled, about this country
revolving like a planet round the sun of Rome. Turning
from such language as this, he would go to another decla-
ration of Dr. Wiseman, as to the effect of the late bull on
the spiritual character and position of the Roman Catholic
bishops and clergy in this country; and when he referred to
Dr. Wiseman, however he might differ from the policy of
some of his acts, he referred to him as a gentleman and a
scholar.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Dr. Wiseman said that, by
the new arrangement the bishop would not be one item
more a bishop than he was before—that not one of them
had their spiritual jurisdiction extended—that there was
not the smallest additional clerical jurisdiction, or new
powers given over the Roman Catholics in England—that
in all these the bishops were where they were, what they
were, and what they would continue to be. There was no
difference.—(Hear, hear.) These were the words of Dr.
Wiseman, and taking that evidence alone, it was conclu-
sive that no new powers had been added to the Roman
Catholic Church in a spiritual sense, because the bishops,
in a spiritual sense, were where they were and what they
were. It was not necessary for spiritual purposes, that they
should have had territorial titles conferred upon them.
If the object had simply been to confer a spiritual jurisdic-
tion on them, they might as well have been called Bishop of
Melipotamus as Birmingham ; the name did not make the
slightest difference as far as their jurisdiction over Roman
Catholics was concerned.--(Hear, hear.) But what was the
effect with regard to the temporal question? There could be
no doubt that in ordinary cases an appointment to a territo-
rial diocese included the temporalities of that diocese. In
this case there were no temporalities attached to the sees
created by the Pope.—(Hear, hear.) But the creation of a
territorial see was, in all cases, even in Roman Catholic
countries, the act of the temporal power, and not of the Pope.
Wherever the Pope had attempted it it had been resisted,
even by force of arms, and in a recent case even the King
of Naples, one of the most dutiful children of the Pope,
had resisted the creation of a diocese, in that way.—
(Hear, hear.) It was clear then, that the creation of
a diocese was a temporal act; and if the creation of a
diocese was a temporal act, the appointment of a bishop
was still more strongly so. He wished to keep the temporal
and the spiritual power separate, and to prevent the inter-
ference of the Pope with the laws of this country. He did
not agree in the doctrine, that the only limit to the spiritual
power of the Pope was his own will.—( Hear.) He pro-
tested against that doctrine as a Roman Catholic—he pro-
tested against it as leading to usurpation and tyranny, as a
doctrine which might convert Europe into a jumble, in which
thei continent might be ruled by a monarch who, although
he wore three crowns, was at this moment a puppet in the
hands of other powers.—(Cheers.) He held in his hands the
declaration of English peers, who, unlike their
.nancestors in
en-
dtleineeteimoef
tohfisrena,
Edwardau i
and pnrsotteeasdtinogf assertingagainst submission
Rome—instead of asserting their rights as Englishmen mid
as Catholics—instead of standing bravely up and resisting
the introduction of the tyranny of Rome in spiritual and
the
lep
to
temporal matters, into this country, he found these peers
asserting that the authority of the Pope, as t he success
orof St. Peter—(A laugh)—could only be limited b y
his
own free act or concession. Just let them look at the ef-
fect of this doctrine? In whatever country it had been
acted upon, it had produced the most monstrous deeds. All
attempts
spiritual acts. The bulls by which excommunications
at excommunication hudbtehenese done by the Pope as
Do-
mini, annually published, was a spiritual act. All these
were fulminated were spiritualacts.The bull In Coma
things, all these interferences, and other consequences which
modern civilization shrunk from, and which no man would
attempt to countenance without running the risk of bringing
to the ground all constitutional principles and institutions,
were, and are professed to be, spiritual acts. What could
they say of the doctrine and the policy which led to theissu-
ing of a public document, in which the very existence of the
Sovereign of this country was ignored, while affecting to
portion out the realm into dioceses—(Hear)—and the Fords
of which, if taken in their plain and natural sense, heaped
insult Upon insult on the dignity of the Crown and the exist-a