The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-15 00:00:00

PRIESTHOOD.

Sir R. INGLIS, after presenting several petitions from
Cauthorne and other places against the Papal
aggression, said that ho had also another pe-
tition to present from a gentleman who had
formerly been a Member of that House, Mr. Fitzhard
ing Berkeley. That gentleman, after the usual pream-
ble of a petition, proceeded to say that while residing near
Cholmondeley, with his daughter-in-law, who was a
ward in Chancery, sho had been induced to enter a
convent, and was at that time a postulate in the convent,
with the intention hereafter of becoming a nun.—
(Hear, hear.) In the year 1851 she was still an
occupant of the convent ; and, notwithstanding
that, she continued to be a ward of Chancery, and
would continue so until she was of age. No power,on
the part of her friends was able to release her.
She would not be entitled to enter into the management
of her extensive property, which amounted to 80,0001.
—(Loud cries of " Hear," on all sides of the House)
until she came of age, which would not be until the 6th
of June, 1852.—(Repeated cries of " Hear, hear.") Yet,
notwithstanding, as he had already intimated, that she
was a ward in Chancery, according to the practice and
usage of the Church of Rome, the whole of her property
would be confizcated,—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") She
would lose all control altogether over it, and it
would become the property of the Church to which she
had attached herself.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Further, the petitioner observed that the House, he
trusted, would take it into consideration whether a ward
in Chancery should he permitted thus to put away her
property without the authority of the Court or of her
iriends.—(Hear, hear.) And still more, the petitioner
stated that his daughter by his second marriage, the
half-sister of the young lady to whom he referred, had
been totally excluded trom any communication with her
dearest relative. Thus those feelings of affection which
would otherwise have been engendered were altogether
stifled. The petitioner then, prayed that in any Bill
which might be introduced would be included clauses to
prevent any v.e:rd in Chancery from becoming a postulate,
and that any property which might be taken by the
Church of Dome under similar circumstances should
be vested in the Queen, and used for whatever pur-
poses her Majesty might think fit.
Mr. CLEMEN'FS presented a similar petition.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM also presented a petition
against the Bill from a place in Yorkshire.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition to the same effect
from a place in the West Riding.
Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Hope, Air. Guinness, Mr. John
O'Connell, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Moore, Mr. Hindley, and
Mr. P. Westheari presented petitions to the same effect.
Mr. PACKE presented a petition praying the House
to pass the Bill in its integrity.
Mr. SPOONER presented several petitions from Bir-
mingham against the Papal aggression.
Mr. GROGAN presented a petition to the same ef-
fect from Dublin.

Sir WILLIAM VERNER presented 21 petitions to
the same effect.

Mr. I.kIUNI:Z presented a petition against the Bill,
from the-Roman Catholics of Nuneaton; also several pe-
titions from Birmingham, complaining of the Papal
aggression.
51r. GRATTAN presented a petition against the Bill
from Westmeath.

Mr. COWAN presented petitions from Paisley and
other places in Scotland against the Papal aggression.
Mr. HENRY presented petitions against the Bill,
from the Roman Catholics of Liverpool.

Lord J. RUSSELL then repeated his motion "That the
Bill be read a second time ."

On the question being put from the Chair,
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY rose to move the
second reading of the Bill that day six months. In stating
his reasons for so d ing he should treat the Bill, not as in
the form in which it originally stood when it was introduced
to the House, but in that form in which the Prime Minister
had given notice it was his intention to press it. This, in his
opinion, would be the simpler way. The Bill had been pre-
pared during a period of great excitement—an excitement
caused by the creation of a Roman Catholic hierarchy in this
kingdom by the Pope—by a change in the spiritual organi-
sation under which the Roman Catholics had hitherto lived
in England, by the substitution for vicars apostolic of
bishops and archbishops in ordinary. This change was said
by the people of this country to be an infringement of the
prerogative o the Crown, and an infraction of international
law. To show that it was the contrary, he (the Earl of
Arundel and Surrey) would briefly refer to the case of the
Catholic body in this country in that respect subsequent to
the Reformation. In 1598, the last Roman Catholic bishop
in this country—the Bishop of Lincoln—died, and by his
death the Roman Catholics of England were deprived of an
episcopal head. In this position of affairs an arch-priest was
created to supply the deficiency; but even then it was the
fact that very many of the secular clergy remonstrated
against his appointment—desiring in preference a bishop.
This lasted till 1623, when the demands of the Roman Ca.
thodcs of England for episcopal jurisdiction became so strong
as to produce the appointment of a vicar apostolic; and one
was accordingly appointed to this kingdom. _
_The. Catholic
body was governed by a vicar apostolic until 1688 , in that
year, however, four under that title were appointed, and the
Pope, to use a phrase now very fashionable, parcelled out
the country" into four ecclesiastical divisions. These re-
mained intact until 1840, when England was divided by the
Holy See into eight ecclesiastical districts, and eight vicars
apostolic were appointed to superintend them. In the year
185) the hierarchy which had caused such a commotion in
did
the kingdom was created. Why the Pope create this
hierarchy? Every one knew the irregularities into which
•all bodies of men, especially religious bodies, were prone to
fall when there existed an inefficient discipline or no
discipline. That was the case in the Catholic
body ; they felt nil the inconveniences resulting from
the want of an Established Church in that respect;
and various irregularities prevailed in the absence of
an ecclesiastical organization, from a deficiency of due
common
lin an t CatholicseP
o pe of
for a
an England,
eecl
se at
sht
icier
if therefore,
e
laity,l he
petitionedthßoman
b
e Earl of Arundel and Surrey) signed that
with many other noble lords; and he
r-
passing, that if any man had then told him
gedlisaurc
IgispTapetition, ° anden.
in lee
twhoautldinssaoy' in passing,
he was infringing on the Queen's preroga-
tive, or interfering with international law, he would say that
the man was mad.— (Hear, and laughter.) After a time
the question was arranged in accordance with the desire of
the Roman Catholics, and a hierarchy was appointed. The
Noble Lord at the head of the Government said that one
great part of theinsult in the case was that the Prime Minis-
ter had not been informed of the Pope's intentions in the
matter. Be (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) was sur-
prised the Noble Lord should say that; and to show that
the Noble Lord had perfect cognizance of the intention of
the Pope, he (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) would ask
permission to read certain extracts from the speeche, of the
MemberLl-I,oirnd.bilnsetThey fTorth.e University of Oxford and the Noble
wlB4B, the Noble Lord
,had
db sandobwi
st hatatt,
attention
0 earlyn el
called
ds
tFoe
tbiri
eu af
ir ye
t,
of the intention of the Pope to appoint a hierarchy, and was
asked by the Hon. Member for the University of Oxforawhat
steps he meant to take in the matter. He (the Earl of Arundel
and Surrey) would show also from these extracts that in the
August of the same year, when the Diplomatic Arrange-
ments with Rome Bill was under discussion, the Hon. Mem-
ber for the University of Oxford had again brought the sub-
ject before the House, and that the Noble Lord upon that
oc'asion, having in the intervening period well end carefully
thc,‘ had pro-
ceeded ti lay down what was his ow,: opiutue on tie subject
—not alone with reference to Pius IX., but also with refer-
ence to the Pope hig predecessor. Oil the 16th of February,

1848, Sir R. Inglis on the discussion of a Remelt Cathol
question, introduced he (the Fad of Arundel and Surrey)
believed by the Hon and Le trised Member for Youghal, said
-" It appeared, then, as his statement had not been con-
tradicted, that it was the intention of the Court of Rome to
subdivide her Majesty's European dominions, as wallas those
beyond sea, into bishoprics, without the consent of the Crown
of England; and hecontended, in the language of the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster, whose petition he had had the honour
of presenting in the course of the present session, that it was
high time that England should, instead of repealing its
own just and necessary laws against Popish aggression,
vindicate its own independency, by calling
on the Bishop of
Rome to withdraw his usurpations and invasions upon
the dignity of the English Crown, the integrity of the Eng-
lish Constitution, and the liberties of the English people' It
was clear, therefore, that the intention of the Pope to create
a hierarchy in England was brought under the notice of the
Noble Lord as early as February, 1818. On the 17th of
August following, Sir R. Inglis said, " even the late Pope
himself, Gregory XVI.-as high an authority, perhaps, for
general history as any sovereign reigning at the time, had
said, when Bishop Wiseman - (An Hon. Member -Dr.
iseman.) -He (Sir R. Inglis) had no objection to call him
Bishop Wiseman a his objection was to calling him
Arch-
bishop of Westminster.' He did not deny float there were
bishops in the Church of Rome he only objected to their
claiming to be bishops of places in his Queen's dominion!'
and against his Queen's permission and authority. Wolin
any stare in Europe whether Protestant or Roman Catholic_
have permitted the Pope of Rome to carve out a. portion of
native dominions cf that sate, and to divide it into
archbish pries and bishoprics without communication with
its own Sovereign ? He trusted that his Noble Friend at
the head of the Government would state distinctly-as be
believed he could have done a few mouths ago-that a de-
licate intimation had been made to the Pope that he could
not be permitted to create a bishopric in the Queen's done!..
Mons without the Queen's consent. He did trust the Non°
Lord would state this; although the statement had, be be-
lieved, appeared in the Tablet in England, and in the Free-
man's man's Journal in Ireland, that bulls were introduced into
this country at this moment, and without the sanction of .
Queen, dividing the Queen's dominions into archbishopric_
and bishoprics, and filling them with persons not appointed
t
coun
or recognised, or acknowledged by the Queen. This, h
tended, no Protestant Sovereign in Europe but the Queend
England would have permitted for a moment; and hs e:
hope that the Sovereign of these realms had advisers aboanst
her throne strong enough to reject any such proPsiii°ll th
all events, he had reason to know that at least a few mon
ago a stop was put to such proceedings." The Noble I•:,ornP
in some doubt, said on that occasion, in his reply-
Hon. Gentleman has asked me some questions with regard 10
certain proceedings that have taken place. Ido opt know
whether he wishes to ask me now with respect to the ern
tion of Roman Catholic archbishops in England. Ido noy
know that the Pope has authorised in any waYribY an
authority he may have, the creation of any archbishop_s
or bishopric with dioceses in England ; but certainly I nlafv/
not given my consent-nor should I give my consent s.'
were I asked to do so -to any such formation of wee-e- coe
It would be useless, therefore, to have asked the
Noble the Noble Lord.-(Hear, and laughter.) The eo--e ray
then proceeded to say--,, With regard to spiritual authu.eee
the Eon. Gentleman must see, when he alludes to l'ev
states in Europe, that whatever control is to he obtained
eeed
over the spiritual authority of the Pope can only be obtat_:a
by agreement for that end. You must either give certain
advantages to the Roman Catholic religion, and obtain br7h
the Pope certain other advantages in return, among vidin.
you must stipulate that the Pope shall not create any en
cases in England without the consent of the Queen 10
the other hand, you must say that you will have nothing
do with arrangements of that kind - that you will not c‘();.n.
sent, in any way, to give any authority to the Roman the
tholic religion in England. But then you must leave the
spiritual authority of the Pope entirely unfettered. Y°11,(00
not bind the Pope's spititual influence unless you haveilnek
agreement. For my own part I am not disposed to
that it would be for the advantage of tt is country, or toe:
it would be agreeable to the Roman Catholics, that we!
should have an agreement with the Pope by
religious arrangements should be regulated." That Was the
deliberate op nion of the Noble Lord in reference to this
heti
pedant question, to which his attention had been ca 0
months before.-(Hear, hear.) Were not the eePe°bPle
and his advisers right in concluding that if the e'-
e the
Lord would not give his consent, he would not ePPee •
which tla,.irs
Act? -(Hear, and laughter.) It was, in fact, an invitatire,
to the Pope to use his spiritual authority in an unfette_a
manner in this country. Taking into consideration, °ere,
other circumstances, the Pope h d
the Noble Lord would object to the establishment of a hier-
archy archy in this kingdom. So much for the insult to te,s
a no reason to cone'''.
country and the Noble Lord. But with regard to the Queeld
prerogative, how stood the case? The act of the PoPe .e a
nothing that the Queen could do; prevented nothing that
Queen should do; touched nothing, in fact, and changiete
nothing in the anterior relations of the Church of Rome woe
this country ; it affected, its fact, only those by whomd,
spiritual authority of thatop was fully and freely admitlee
The Noble Lord said he assumption of territorial tit_se;
in England was not illegal at statute or at common law, u
that the Papal bull creating those titles was doubtful at coneri
mon law in that respect, and illegal by statute. He (the Earl
of Arundel and Surrey) believed that it could be easily ellete
e,
that this question was not at all affected by the 8°11113170
while, as regarded the statute law, it only proposed to _
what the Act of 1829 had left unerformed. That Act, in:
maintained, was clearly imperfect; but he admitted, at the
same time, that the Noble Lord might have been quite leg"'
in not legislating on the subject With respect to te 1n:
fraction of international law he admitted it was difficult,i_v_
treat it properly; but supposing any such infraction to take
place, the way to deal with it would be by negotiation,
not by passing a Bill through Parliament.-(Hear, heagr;.'
A great deal had been said respecting the language uf r
dinal Wiseman's pastoral. That p astoral however, was e
ad-
dressed to the Catholics only, and it was natural tnat 1
should call on them to rejoice at a matter which waster them
a source of such gratification as the re-establishment of 6981-
plete ecclesiastical organization. They did not expect
pathy from their Protestant fellow-subjects; but they iid
not expect that they would take offence. Some of the ex-
pressions in that document had been interpreted by the corn-
mon people to mean an assumption of authority on the Pert
of the Catholic Church. The Noble Lord had, in his speech
introducing the Bill, quoted the words, " We govern, au-
e
shall continue to govern, the counties of Middlesex, Hertford,
and Essex -" and said that ‘.he could not see in these words
anything but an assumption of territorial sovereignty." But
it would have been only just, and certainly it would be far
more candid, if the Noble Lord had given the rest of the pas-
sage, which ran thus :-" So that at present, and till such time
as the Holy Sea shall think fit otherwise to provide, we govern,
and shall continue to govern, thecounties of Middlesex, Hort'
ford, and Essex, as ordinary thereof, and those of Surrey,
Sussex, Kent, Berkshire, and Hampshire, with island,' an-
nexed, as administrator with ordinary jurisdiction." This
meant that he governed them, not as the vicars apostolic
did, but as a bishop, and until other bishops were appoistel
with ordin ry jurisdiction. The expression " govern.'
which had been so strongly objected to, was common not
alone to Roman Catholics, but to most ecclesiastical, docu-
ments. The brief of the Pope showed the sense in which it
was used to be to regulate the spiritual government of the
Roman Catholic Church in this country, as the House
might perceive, when it said" But in the sacred government
of clergy and laity, and in all other things appertaining
unto the pastoral office, the archbishops and bishops '
England will henceforward enjoy all the rights and facul-
ties which the other Catholic archbishops and bishops e'
other nations, according to the common ordinances of the
sacred canons and apostol cal constitutions, use and 11181
use." An extract from the address of the late vicar an-
tolic in Wales would also show in what sense the woe
" governed" was employed, and that it was used in a me":_lA"
e,
ing no way different from that in which the Wesleyan essplon7
it in speaking of John Wesley having "governed" that
of religionists. What, he (the Earl of Arundel and Sarre)",
wound next asl. , was the difference of the position oftsne.
8P er
Roman Catholics under bishops and under vicars
tolic, with regard to people outside the Church? The answ_eo
was, nothing. In fact the change would never have
been been disc-Neva: only for the disturbance which had e
cre oted about it. It gave the Roman Catholics no leg
thing
or power; neither did it give them temporalities, or any -ate
of that nature. The Noble Lord the Member for Bath 0,
that the C allelic Church claimed e eery baptised pare then
(" Hear, hear," from Lord Ashley.) So she did; b enforce
did that change give them an atom more pow to era
that theological deduc ion. Did not the vicars apostoll
they
the clergy under them make the same claim? and Were see
see
any nearer its completion? It had been said tha' and
pointment of a hierarchy was obnoxi us to the c:ergeeed
laity of England ; but the letter ofe Mr. Langdale Pro or
that the Roman Catholic Peers of England,
four exceptions, almost the whole of the Catholic bar°
and the great b_dy of the secular clerey of the Thernd
tholic Church in this country, had applied for it; g- re'
(the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) had himself latelycg to
sented a petition from 400 secular priests of that
Cbill their
the House, in which it was stated to be the object 0
t ould
most ardent desires. The Rues ion then arose, wee-floe
be the result of those 'measures in which the
eioa
was now engaged? One result would be the On, A
of the law. Was it right of Parliament to of
law which was liable to evasion ?-(Hear.) The e ,e 0
with thrall
ts,
evading laws was proved in Ireland it was but one e-e
tram the evasion of an unjust law through.' conscientlene
motives, to the evasion of a just law through mote
end
preiseworthy.-(Hear. Another result would befinealee
impr senment. But did the House take into c-andsr
of
that every 100 L taken from the archbishops and bash el! se
the Catholic Church, in the shape of fioe would be
a ,
Catholic poor
much money taken out of the pockets c f the e fined
in England and in Ireland? And then when no neo
arid not
would be go-, there was imprisonment. But no; he _oro..
think the people of England, however ardent Ode* 'feint
testanisns, would suffer that. Then there motives less
was a third
,rive: in
-exile. If the Catholic prelates were unable this he.
their respective dioceses through the operation of ile (the
they ese uld have to go forth to foreign countries. .ek that
Earl f Arundel and Surrey) fid not, however. thwod it as
the House would disagree with him, when he expresso( this
his opinion that it would be little for the go bibishops
country, that the Cathol.c bishops and arc Belgium
should live on the coasts of France oe e, their
or Holland, outcasts from their home, apart f P3r,' open
flocks, their minds embittered by exile and poYeefeexpesed
to the suggestions of every enemy of England, and gear,
to every hostile insinuation against the eountry; s
ed it a
:e,
hear.) He (Lord Arundel and Surrey) cOne"- r way
most vexatious persecution, viewed in whatever
might be, as well as a retrograde step in a direction_nc_on_tetaarrle.
to that in which the country had been moving 1 r 2. said
There was nothing similar to it in any country. It
reess.ee
that Protestants were persecuted in Catholic count 1 but,
countries where despotism was the rule, it might he_lre'beeld
ears
to institute a just comparison. constitutional countnfeee; e
be taken as a test alone. For instance; only
o, feegmul•
since the Count de Merode, the Catholic Minister I
proposed a Bill to make provision for Protestant eil.eetgleroellp-
of all sects in that country; and it not only met w T 0 bead
position on the part of the Archbishop of alalines,ho (the
of the Belgian Catholic monarchy, hut was passed' ~
tional
at all
u
Earl of Arundel and Surrey) believed, unanimously
events, it became the law. In llolland too--a cons,t,
member
country-the Minister of Worship, in reply to their sect to
for Brabant, said that the Government wished
carry out its complete organization in matters
° England,
such a manner as they thought most proper. hieh thee'
however, not only was the Bill under discussion, we
hter)--
would do their best constitutionally to defeat-(
"ngaddition
held before the Roman Catholics, but they were
s.
threatened on all sides with ulterior measurefew.....h
Ole Earl of Arundel and Surrey) knew they
were
the Irish
spoke of the English Catholics alone, becatense
that House
Catholics were numerous, and had Members
he
knew they
England,
in
able and willing to defend their interests-e,
defenceless, and
(the English Catholics) were physically 1
God, and suffer
without the power to help themselves; btidnt
what might, they would put their trust
with loyal Pee
oppression, if oppression they were to endure,
The Noble
tierce and with Christian firmness.- (Hear. second
Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be read
Come to
suffer
time that day six mouths. ressed
Mr. REYNOLDS seconded the motion
Ireland *s' lid be He exp ir:!,; 0-
his surprise arid astonishment that
.
nstitu-
he power of offering aco d
Jug
cause Ireland was strong in t
min 0
ducc,d into the measure ; bat he rejoiced it was in 1
tional resistance its further progress. The public